I went along yesterday to see Alan Moran in the Lion’s Den. Well, not really a lion’s den; more like an opportunity to form a circular firing squad with everyone shooting at the only person in the room trying to tell them that they are asking for $500+ electricity bills with all other prices scaled upwards to fit in with the higher cost of energy. Because if that is what they want, the market will certainly provide it.
I naturally start with all the usual questions.
Is there global warming? Is it being caused by industrial production? Is there anything we can do about it? Will rising temperatures actually cause any harm even if temperatures are rising? Is there any emergency that demands that we take action right away? Can Australia do anything independently of anyone else? If no one else is doing anything to control emissions, is there any reason we should? And the question of question, after the emails scandal at the University of East Anglia, is there any way to tell where the truth actually lies?
I then go on with the usual qualifications when I hear people going on about global warming and the rising of the seas. I have lived through plenty of doomsday scenarios in my time so why should anyone expect this one to be different? The short list of the ones that come to mind:
• global cooling
• nuclear winter
• resource exhaustion
• Club of Rome Reports
• oil depletion
• the population bomb
• worldwide famine
• Y2K.
Y2K is especially good. That was one about which no one could know in advance whether it was an immense beat up by the world’s programmers to provide for their retirement funds or whether it was a genuine crisis that might lead to a major cataclysm in industrial society.
Well, New Years 2000 was pretty good, lots of fun and so far as I know, not a single light across the globe went out (no pun intended). For that one, to prepare all one really needed were a few provisions, a hurricane lamp, a box of matches and about a week’s supply of tinned foods. Not a big cost. Whatever else happened, civilisation was not going to come to an end.
For this one, though, for this global warming projection, for this it is another story. I can barely believe the costs that are being built into the world’s economic structures because of it. If we really do take this on, the potential for serious economic loss here in Australia is immense. As for the rest of the world, there will be no effect, nothing at all as they play us for fools and get on with doing what they are doing.
The Greenpeace video shiwubg that young kid with the snarly face talking about how awful it’s going to be when we have no more fish and the seashores disappear is a pretty dismal example of a complete know-nothing ignoramus sprouting on about matters of which he could not possibly have the slightest personal knowledge.
If it is a genuine personal view, but who can tell, then he has had his head filled with ideas that have been provide by others which have pretty clearly poisoned his youth. If that is where the world is heading so far as electoral politics and public decision making is concerned, I should perhaps start storing up now, getting in more hurricane lamps and matches before their prices rise beyond my ability to purchase with the diminished disposable income left to me once these carbon taxes are introduced.
And then, if there is no global warming, will it have been because of the carbon abatement programmes, or just because it was never anyways going to happen? We’ll never know, but once we start we will keep on paying those carbon taxes for ever. The people who receive that money – our governments – are never going to let us stop.
It’s probably a stupid question but, if you wanted to know about global warming would Alan Moran be the best person to go to?
I am trying to think of some analogies – I need a structural engineer to give me some dimensions on a load bearing support so I go and ask joe the Gadget Man for his opinion
or Big Jim
or I have lost my appetite, there is blood in my urine and I feel very tired – I should ask the lady in the cake shop?
As I said, it’s probably a stupid question (to ask an economist)
rog
10 Sep 10 at 7:21 pm
It’s probably a stupid question but, if you wanted to know about global warming would Alan Moran be the best person to go to?
Better than you, Rog. And yes, it is a stupid question. You might like to explain why you sent most of the last several years ridiculing “global warming.”
As I said, it’s probably a stupid question (to ask an economist).
So you’re saying Ross Garnaut should be ignored? And railway engineer Rajendra Pachauri and dinosaur poo expert Tim Flannery and failed divinity student Al Gore?
Right.
And then, if there is no global warming, will it have been because of the carbon abatement programmes, or just because it was never anyways going to happen? We’ll never know, but once we start we will keep on paying those carbon taxes for ever. The people who receive that money – our governments – are never going to let us stop.
Right, Steve. It’s the Keynesian voodoo being unleashed into a new arena. Do something and it’s still warm = we didn’t spend enough. The thermostat fails to obey warmy predictions = yay! we were right and the ‘abatement’ worked!
C.L.
10 Sep 10 at 8:04 pm
“I have lived through plenty of doomsday scenarios in my time so why should anyone expect this one to be different?”
Of course, there are lots of things that people thought were benign that wern’t also. So I don’t really see the point of listing independent events. Why not list the opposite ones too if you are worried about it? New Orleans, Chernobyl, various dams, WWII, etc .
conrad
10 Sep 10 at 8:16 pm
Answers to ‘usual questions’: yes, yes, yes, yes, debatable, no, no, and the last one is unanswerable because the implied premise is false.
It’s not a good look that you’re still looking for answers to these basic questions.
“I have lived through plenty of doomsday scenarios in my time so why should anyone expect this one to be different?”
I don’t think you’ve actually “lived through” global cooling, nuclear winter, resource exhaustion, or oil depletion. If you mean to say, “These predictions of doom haven’t come true (yet), why should this one be true?”, I’d say because for most of them the evidence base is different.
Nuclear winter is an odd one to mention – if the world had seen a nuclear exchange during the Cold War, there’s no doubt we would have had a nuclear winter. That the exchange didn’t happen isn’t evidence that predictions of a nuclear winter after a nuclear exchange were somehow wrong.
“I can barely believe the costs that are being built into the world’s economic structures because of it. If we really do take this on, the potential for serious economic loss here in Australia is immense.”
Can we have some numbers please? Even back-of-envelope ones.
“And then, if there is no global warming, will it have been because of the carbon abatement programmes, or just because it was never anyways going to happen?”
The global warming is happening, it’s the consequences that are up for debate. I think you mean, “If there’s less warming than predicted…”
“but once we start we will keep on paying those carbon taxes for ever. The people who receive that money – our governments – are never going to let us stop.”
That is a real and dangerous possibility. Ideally carbon taxes will be revenue-neutral, and tied to warming trends so that if it turns out thousands of experts were wrong, the taxes can drop as well. But decisions are made by those who turn up, so let’s not leave it to the Greens.
Jarrah
10 Sep 10 at 8:35 pm
Q: Is there global warming?
A: Definitely
Q: Is it being caused by industrial production?
A: Almost certainly
Q: Is there anything we can do about it?
A: Do industrial production differently
Q: Will rising temperatures actually cause any harm even if temperatures are rising?
A: Most probably
Q: Is there any emergency that demands that we take action right away?
A: Given the 50+ years of life of coal-fired power stations, either don’t build them or advise those debt-funding them thet may get a haircut in a few years time. And point out to those equity-funding them that the economics don’t work if we equity fund them.
Then if you’re Tony Abbott propose Big Government step in and Help And Regulate Stuff Until The Problem Goes Away. If you’re from Labor or the Greens, propose a market-based mechanism, like an ETS.
Q: Can Australia do anything independently of anyone else?
A: I think you meant to ask “can Australia do anything *material* independently of anyone else”. To which the answer is No.
Q: If no one else is doing anything to control emissions, is there any reason we should?
A: Unless the EU ceased to exist, they still account for over 30% of world GDP. They are doing something. If you think 12tn euro/year is nothing, then you’ve bigger problems than I thought.
Q: And the question of question, after the emails scandal at the University of East Anglia, is there any way to tell where the truth actually lies?
A: Yeah. Work out the difference between a beatup and a real problem.
PSC
10 Sep 10 at 8:43 pm
And while we’re about, I personally know some people who worked on Y2K at one of our major banks. This bank would not have been able to process transactions on 1/1/2000 but for some changes that were made to the bank’s IT system.
You could know the answer to the bloody question of you talked to some folk.
PSC
10 Sep 10 at 8:48 pm
And while we’re about, I personally know some people who worked on Y2K at one of our major banks. This bank would not have been able to process transactions on 1/1/2000 but for some changes that were made to the bank’s IT system.
So there was no need to stock that bunker in the country with supplies after all? Actually, there was really no reason to even cancel a flight? Just some changes to the IT system.
I got a feeling that AGW might end up in a similar vein.
Michael Sutcliffe
10 Sep 10 at 8:59 pm
“So there was no need to stock that bunker in the country with supplies after all? Actually, there was really no reason to even cancel a flight? Just some changes to the IT system.”
Damm straight MS. And in 25 years you’ll be making sarcastic comments where the punchline is “Just some changes to the energy generation and transportation systems.”
But in the 90′s people were whining endlessly about how expensive it was to change IT systems. What a bust their “it’s too expensive” argument turned out to be. Somhow human engenuity sorted it out. Whoda thought?
PSC
10 Sep 10 at 9:09 pm
“If you’re from Labor or the Greens, propose a market-based mechanism, like an ETS.”
Thank God you didn’t say “the CPRS”.
.
10 Sep 10 at 9:12 pm
Yeah. Work out the difference between a beatup and a real problem.
We have so far as AGW is concerned; it’s a beat-up.
dover_beach
10 Sep 10 at 10:02 pm
Indeed, Dover. That’s now established to all but denialists.
C.L.
10 Sep 10 at 10:06 pm
I see DB has now regards AGW as a beat up. We now differ on this issue as oil and water.
John H.
10 Sep 10 at 10:08 pm
I love how the Gangreens are asking to put a price on emissions and let the market work it out.
It hysterical because these blowhard nincompoops despise the market, so you know there’s trouble in paradise when they’re proposing such a method.
Here’s my question. What is the purpose of Australia doing any abatement when the big emitters aren’t?
I’ve seen young Harry’s nonsense that the Chinese are. That’s patent bullshit as they’re still building coal fired plants like crazy.
Nothing is going to come out of the US. When you had a pro limited emissions president with the largest same party majorities since LBJ in power and he’s still unable to do anything you can forget about the US, as that isn’t even going to come close to happening after November unless they try to ram it through during the interim just before the new Congress begins to sit.
There’s only one way to reduce emissions and not destroy the economy. We need the price of energy produced by nuclear below the price of coal. It’s getting closer by the day.
JC
10 Sep 10 at 10:09 pm
Market based, my arse. Complexity and gimcrack wankery, yes.
There is NO mand-made global warming. The ‘scientists’ who say there is have now been shown up as government grant seeking arseholes who get teir kicks out of bossing us around.
Western cicvilsation will succumb to islam before global warming hits us because our freedom and our coherence is being taken away from us by dumbfuck politicians who seem to think that somehow mnore government regulation is not as subject to corruption as free enterprise.
Rococo Liberal
10 Sep 10 at 10:11 pm
JohnH, so you don’t think AGW has been exaggerated?
dover_beach
10 Sep 10 at 10:12 pm
PSC.
Stop kidding yourself. The EU is nothing bullshit about emissions. It’s all one huge wank.
What they are doing which the left here won’t entertain because of its anti-science bent is to add to the number of reactors in a smallish way though.
It’s truly incredible that out of 356 nuke reactors proposed by 2030 only a small number are in the West.
But hey we have our propellers and plastic panels. LOL
JC
10 Sep 10 at 10:14 pm
I do think it has been exaggerated but probably for entirely different reasons than yourself. I have a rather different perspective on the current ecostate, believing that it is at least conceivable that the changes human activity have introduced made represent a discontinuity thereby making future projections based on past contingencies and outcome highly problematic.
Calling something a beat up is a term that typically refers to it being bollocks.
John H.
10 Sep 10 at 10:21 pm
They’re all religious nutballs, RL. Basically anti-science religious nut balls and not because they believe in AGW.
The Alarmists tell us that we should/must take account of the projection models and the science that follows the models or the person is a denialist. (I can’t take hearing the planet shit one more time. The planet this, that planet that).
Yet nearly all these nutballs refuse to entertain nuclear science, which is a proven safe alternative seeing 25% of the world’s energy has come from nucke for the past 40 odd years.
Despite my comments I actually believe we have a long term problem with emissions, as it could cause climate changes that may jolt us and as someone has mentioned before the real concern is potential acidification of the oceans over the long term.
But FFS nuclear energy is the obvious solution to this problem but it isn’t allowed in the options suite and greatly restricted in other parts of the western world.
There’s no point in even trying to deal with these people.
The sceptics are actually far more honest about this than the alarmists.
The sceptics are saying they don’t believe there is enough evidence to support the theory of AGW. However there would be very few sceptics that would want to prevent conversion to nuclear energy if the move was relatively costless as it looks like being in the next 15 years or so seeing the cost of producing energy from reactors will fall below the price of coal by that time.
Despite what they mumble about the horror of coal, the supplies of cheap coal aren’t there any more. There isn’t enough good coal at a cheap price to supply future world needs. Therefore we’re going to see the marginal cost of coal energy rise over the next decades and the cost of producing nuclear based energy continue to fall as we see economic scaling in that sector.
JC
10 Sep 10 at 10:34 pm
Of course, there are lots of things that people thought were benign that wern’t also. So I don’t really see the point of listing independent events. Why not list the opposite ones too if you are worried about it? New Orleans, Chernobyl, various dams, WWII, etc
Well Katrina, and Chernobyl were almost certainly leftist beat ups. WWII was pretty spot on, but that was caused by leftists. Well done Meatloaf. That’s 2 out of 3.
Infidel Tiger
10 Sep 10 at 10:35 pm
The EU are full of shit. Their ETS was so corrupt and manipulated that the price fell through the floor and it became inept.
.
10 Sep 10 at 10:37 pm
New Orleans, Chernobyl
These are interesting examples because New Orleans was not unexpected; in fact Popular Mechanics (??? or some similar publication) described the event perfectly in an article a year or so before.
The significance and damage caused by Chernobyl was vastly exaggerated.
Incidentally, the environmental impact of the oil spill a couple of months ago was also vastly exaggerated. Notice how it’s not in the news any more? It’s vanished!!!
There’s a pattern with these false alarms, and the pattern is that there are way more doomsday predictions than there are doomsdays.
No. The nuclear winter hypothesis was all based on speculation and dodgy modelling.
Again, nope. This is impossible for several reasons. One example: all you need is one cheater (could be China, could be someone else) and it won’t work.
The bigger point is that the only way to do industrial production differently is to partially de-indsutrialise.
“yeah yeah” you’re nodding. “let’s do that.”
Well, understand that it means reduction in wealth, which means poverty.
Golf clap for the bank. The global y2k project was not completed in time. Yet there was no catastrophe.
ergo: Theory falsified.
daddy dave
10 Sep 10 at 10:38 pm
Not only is human CO2 production not harmful it is entirely beneficial to the environment, that’s the craziest part of this kooky hoax.
At least they could have picked on something that was, you know, actually polluting the environment (like Garnaut). Of course that assumes Greens actually care about the environment and aren’t just using it as a front.
Chris M
10 Sep 10 at 10:41 pm
it is at least conceivable that the changes human activity have introduced made represent a discontinuity thereby making future projections based on past contingencies and outcome highly problematic.
Very interesting point, John H.
I agree that humans have introduced a massive discontinuity into the ecosystem.
daddy dave
10 Sep 10 at 10:41 pm
Very interesting point, John H.
I agree that humans have introduced a massive discontinuity into the ecosystem.
I believe this was first noticed when we ran out of sabre tooth tiger rugs at the entry of our caves. Big woop. We have adapted and will continue to. The planet doesn’t give a rat’s arse. It has no feelings and will continue to spin onwards regardless of whatever skite we get up to.
Infidel Tiger
10 Sep 10 at 10:45 pm
Look guys ,there is a potential big problem here perhaps from 2030-50 onwards because we shouldn’t take undue risk with this shit as it could blow up in our face.
There are two big freaking “icebergs” we need to worry about and if they start melting because of the warmer global temp, we have a big problem on hands. If Greenland and the south pole start melting away it’s a real worry and the recent summer melting of the north pole could be the canary in the mine.
We can solve a huge part of this by agitating for nuclear power. In fact if Australia wanted to really send a message around the world that would cause lots of countries to take notice is if accepted conversion over the next 20 -30 years. That would be a huge message to send, not the stupid ETS or crap like that.
The reason is that we’re pretty well respected in the world and if we took such a radical step even large countries would take notice and may offer their governments enough momentum to push for it too.
JC
10 Sep 10 at 10:52 pm
Not only is human CO2 production not harmful it is entirely beneficial to the environment, that’s the craziest part of this kooky hoax.
That’s nonsense and betrays a complete misunderstanding of biological processes. Various studies show incredible diversity of responses to increased CO2, from increased nutrition to increased toxin production. So to assume that adding more CO2 will make life better for us is a classic example of how scientists should not think.
John H.
10 Sep 10 at 10:57 pm
Philip Stott made this point in the Intelligence Squared debate on global warming (won by the skeptics). The entire debate is very much worth a read by anyone with an open mind.
daddy dave
10 Sep 10 at 10:58 pm
JC,
Keep pushing that nuke barrow dude. I don’t bother pushing that barrow here but in other places … . Yes, ultimately we have to generates great globs of power. BTW, there is a huge and fascinating research base exploring energy options. Over the long term I’m still opting for fusion power. It’s gonna work dude but for now we have to aim at Nukes.
John H.
10 Sep 10 at 11:00 pm
Chris:
Good risk management suggests that the present climate is damn freaking good for human life. We know that too cold it would kill us by the billions at lightening speed, as we either die of cold or starvation.
Too hot, the ice melts and the oceans tend towards becoming more acidic.
So the most optimal for humans to flourish could be a global temp either close to the present or just a fraction warmer, but if it goes further than that we’re possibly in trouble.
So what to do in terms of maintaining the long term growth arrow upwards and lowering our emissions?
We know what to do. The US was doing it 30 odd years when a minor accident (3 Mile Island) basically stopped them from de-carbonizing further as a result of anti-science trogs agitating governments to halt nuclear reactors.
The US could very well have been 80% nuke by now if it was for enviro-fascists.
JC
10 Sep 10 at 11:02 pm
It’s gonna work dude but for now we have to aim at Nukes.
At least we agree on that.
Aside from nukes, it seems that “carbon reduction policy” is, in one form or another, de-industrialisation policy.
But really I don’t know what the point is of convincing skeptics that it’s happening because there is absolutely nothing we can do about it. If global warming is real, it can’t be stopped. The world can’t, and won’t, deindustrialise that fast.
daddy dave
10 Sep 10 at 11:04 pm
Dad:
And can I remind everybody that IPCC that we keep talking about, very honestly admits that we know very little about 80% of the factors behind climate change.
That’s true. We really know little despite the crapologists pretending otherwise. But why take a risk when we don’t need and why hobble an absolutely fucking fabulous technology that is at the pinnacle of human know-how from being used that would make this debate redundant?
We may very well find that the early projections from climate science was totally fucking wrong and it didn’t matter so much or we may find that it does matter and matter a lot.
However we have the technology to make this debate redundant and put climate science back in the corner office, as our effects would not be that important in terms of emissions.
We have the remarkable ability to do that with nuclear science and take us up another notch of the technology ladder. Not only that but we need huge amounts of energy and the demand is simply not going to stop here. We need cheap and abundant energy and there is no reason why we can’t have it .
I know I keep beating this drum, but I just can’t believe we’re allowing lady luck to pass us by.
JC
10 Sep 10 at 11:15 pm
And can I remind everybody that IPCC that we keep talking about, very honestly admits that we know very little about 80% of the factors behind climate change.
But the statement is contains the seeds of its own destruction. 80%? If you’re going to debate about the precarious of models throwing in second guesses like that makes you look silly. He is making exactly the same mistake he is accusing others of.
John H.
10 Sep 10 at 11:18 pm
Dad:
We do not, should never ever accept and slap down any lunatic that suggests we de-industrialize. That point is simply non-negotiable and far too many discussions in Australia seem to always head in that direction.
Anyone who says that is the solution deserves their ears clipped until red raw homer style.
JC
10 Sep 10 at 11:19 pm
He is making exactly the same mistake he is accusing others of.
He was citing the IPCC. his claim was that this is an uncontested fact, and indeed Schmidt and the others on the pro-warming bench didn’t object.
daddy dave
10 Sep 10 at 11:21 pm
And another thing:
This argument that because our knowledge is insufficient means we should not attempt to do something is parlous in the extreme. If we adopted that principle consistently there would not be a single psychiatric drug on the market because the truth is we have very little idea of how these drugs work. This is almost a generic problem in biomedicine, we still have tremendous work to do in understanding most physiological processes yet we also have great success in treating a great many pathologies. So to argue that because our knowledge is incomplete ipso facto we should wait for the “science to be settled” is cognitive fatalism of the first order that would cripple many areas of intellectual endeavour.
John H.
10 Sep 10 at 11:21 pm
I wish all the sceptics became pro-nuclear fanatics and agitated strongly for nuclear energy.
JC
10 Sep 10 at 11:22 pm
That’s an illogical analogy, John.
That psychiatric illnesses exist is not in doubt.
Guess the difference vis-a-vis warmening.
A more accurate biomedicine/AGW analogy would involve the entire population being forcibly immunised from a hypothetical psychiatric illness – say, fear of giant killer tomatoes.
C.L.
10 Sep 10 at 11:25 pm
…indeed Schmidt and the others on the pro-warming bench didn’t object.
He and others like this turd ball are the reason we’re in this present situation. The pro-side has turned so many people off.
I said the recently that the top echelons of climate science ought to be cleared away as they’ve managed to fuck everything up by turning so many people away.
Gavin Schmidt is one of the worst offenders. That douchebag and others like him need to be put on permanent gardening duty.
JC
10 Sep 10 at 11:27 pm
By your standards CL but most scientists now accept AGW is real and change is required. So to extend the analogy, those who now refute AGW are akin to Scientologists who repudiate psychiatry.
John H.
10 Sep 10 at 11:27 pm
…the entire population being forcibly immunised from a hypothetical psychiatric illness – say, fear of giant killer tomatoes.
That reminds me anyone seen Homer of late?
JC
10 Sep 10 at 11:28 pm
So to extend the analogy, those who now refute AGW are akin to Scientologists who repudiate psychiatry.
Excuse me John, but that is utter crap and is insulting. There are no reputable mainstream psychiatrists who publicly advocate for scientology. Yet there are plenty of luminaries who are varying degrees of skeptic on climate change.
daddy dave
10 Sep 10 at 11:30 pm
most scientists now accept AGW is real and change is required
I’d love to see the numbers on that, actually. Most scientists believe “change is required”? What kind of change do they think is required, and what effect do they think the change will have?
daddy dave
10 Sep 10 at 11:33 pm
So to argue that because our knowledge is incomplete ipso facto we should wait for the “science to be settled” is cognitive fatalism of the first order
Exactly wrong. All your examples are about going about our business, despite uncertainty and risk. But AGW policy is about not driving in case you’re in an accident, or walking across roads in case you’re run over.
daddy dave
10 Sep 10 at 11:36 pm
John, the analogy still doesn’t work well. Psychiatry has been associated with some massive blunders in recent years – the repressed memories panic being the one most comparable to warmening. It has also been the discipline most commonly used by totalitarians to medicalise dissent as an illness.
Excuse me if I take what these ‘scientists’ say with a boulder of salt.
C.L.
11 Sep 10 at 12:00 am
Actually, psychiatry debunked the hysteria regarding repressed memories very quickly. Within less than a decade after repressed memories were in vogue, a decent body of work had been established that seriously challenged the theory. And the body of work supporting the repressed memory hypothesis was nothing remotely like that which we have for AGW.
THR
11 Sep 10 at 12:13 am
AGW is a con. Leftists love it because it provides them with an excuse to send the economy backwards while at the same time furthering government power.
I am highly skeptical in the extreme of AGW, particularly as the various ‘scientists’ involved insist on jetting around the world to different conferences to discuss their economy destroying plans. If they really believed AGW wouldn’t they have stayed away from Copenhagen in protest against all the emissions the event created?
asf
11 Sep 10 at 12:25 am
And Thus Spake Herr Molecular Biologist cum Neurophysiologist “THR”.
Peter Patton
11 Sep 10 at 12:28 am
Come on Patton. Give the dude a shot. He’s giving his honest opinion and it seems to be a fair one too.
JC
11 Sep 10 at 12:32 am
Sorry. But when the Social Studies department starts flexing I reach for my revolver.
Peter Patton
11 Sep 10 at 12:41 am
Well, let’s hear your take on epistemology, Patton.
So far, the complete Catallaxy ‘rebuttal’ of AGW is as follows:
- Al Gore is fat.
- AGW is merely a excuse for a communist, one-world government.
- Somebody at Larvatus once mentioned Nazis in connection with AGW denial.
- Did I mention Al Gore is fat?
Therefore, AGW is false.
Did I miss any?
THR
11 Sep 10 at 12:45 am
Al Gore is fat. AGREE
AGW is merely a excuse for a communist, one-world government. Yes
Somebody at Larvatus once mentioned Nazis in
connection with AGW denial. AGREE
Did I mention Al Gore is fat? Yes but not enough. Gore is a fat ponce
JC
11 Sep 10 at 12:50 am
“What is the purpose of Australia doing any abatement when the big emitters aren’t?”
The EU? 30% ish of world GDP? YoY emissions reductions for the last 6 or 7 years?
PSC
11 Sep 10 at 12:50 am
PSC
Who the fuck are you kidding? The Euros have been rooting around with the baseline for nearly a decade now. OF COURSE they would look good. It’s because they’ve been cheating since inception and every time they nudged the baseline they went back and changed it.
You’re popping far too many delusional pills to try and peddle that shit hear.
They are not 30% of global GDP either.
JC
11 Sep 10 at 12:57 am
THR
1. Al Gore IS fat. Like REALLY fat.
2. AGW is FACT.
3. We can do 3/5ths of Fuck-All about it.
4. I Hope This Helps.
Peter Patton
11 Sep 10 at 1:07 am
Actually, psychiatry debunked the hysteria regarding repressed memories very quickly. Within less than a decade after repressed memories were in vogue, a decent body of work had been established that seriously challenged the theory. And the body of work supporting the repressed memory hypothesis was nothing remotely like that which we have for AGW.
Correct, repressed memory syndrome was never widely accepted. Even people like myself completely repudiated the idea, if only because it first began when two christian psychiatrists in Philadelphia started the whole thing rolling with talk about satanic events being repressed. It never became established. Thanks heavens for Eliz Loftus!
Can anyone here point me to a scientific study which directly challenges AGW? Peer reviewed, good journal, not some fucking website or economist. If you can’t do that, I will have to disregard any notions that there are “plenty of scientists” out there who repudiate the AGW. One reference, that’s all for the present.
John H.
11 Sep 10 at 1:56 am
John
Richard Lindzen from MIT doubts it. He’s a very decent scientist and has written lots of stuff doubting it.
JC
11 Sep 10 at 2:12 am
Let me correct that . He doesn’t doubt AGW perse, but doubts it as runaway AGW which is what the alamrmist s are suggesting.
here’s on of his many articles.
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/230_TakingGr.pdf
taken from here
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/PublicationsRSL.html
JC
11 Sep 10 at 2:20 am
Here’s another that suggests at current levels of Co2 emissions we are at the point where the evidence would imply we’ve reached the extreme outcome and subsequent addtions to co2 in the atmosphere will not have that much effect. This is because of logrithmic characeteritics.
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/L_R-Exchange.pdf
He also suhggests that we really don’t know which of the greenhouse gases man has put in the atmospehre is doing what to cause the warming and which is most sensitive.
The most important obversation he makes is the the short term noise in weather and climate overwhelms the century of aarming we’ve seen : .6 degrees.
He argues the models currently in use have little acklodgement of clouds.
All good stuff.
JC
11 Sep 10 at 2:50 am
Thanks JC,
Correct, Lindzen does not repudiate AGW but repudiates the alarmism and admits there is a possibility it is still due to natural variability. However in a NAS 2001 paper, which he co-authored, it is stated that warming is “mostly likely” due to human activity.
Had a quick read, good paper JC. Thanks. Lindzen is not arguing against AGW but rather that the models are poor reflections of reality. In a sense that only makes matters worse though because it means we don’t know much more than we think we don’t know thus it could get very bloody hot or could just bubble along as usual or … . Essentially Lindzen’s position is that AGW is happening but we cannot be sure about its full impact. He is arguing against wholesale change to our society. That’s no big deal, I’m not arguing for wholesale change and never have, what I am arguing is that just because there exists uncertainty doesn’t mean we should just continue on our merry way.
Oh and BTW, some months ago I did reference a paper here which seriously challenged one of the fundamental assumptions behind AGW: forcing, reduced it by a very large margin. Published in Nature. That is the sort of thing I am looking for.
This is what I think we should be aiming at because otherwise we could be confronted with a “brutal and pulverising ice age”:
http://royalsociety.org/Event_WF.aspx?pageid=4294969611&terms=climate+change&fragment=&SearchType=&terms=climate%20change
John H.
11 Sep 10 at 3:00 am
This paper directly repudiates a central tenet of AGW:
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 114, D14104, 8 PP., 2009
doi:10.1029/2008JD011637
Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature
J. D. McLean
Applied Science Consultants, Croydon, Victoria, Australia
C. R. de Freitas
School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
R. M. Carter
Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia
Time series for the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) and global tropospheric temperature anomalies (GTTA) are compared for the 1958?2008 period. GTTA are represented by data from satellite microwave sensing units (MSU) for the period 1980–2008 and from radiosondes (RATPAC) for 1958–2008. After the removal from the data set of short periods of temperature perturbation that relate to near-equator volcanic eruption, we use derivatives to document the presence of a 5- to 7-month delayed close relationship between SOI and GTTA. Change in SOI accounts for 72% of the variance in GTTA for the 29-year-long MSU record and 68% of the variance in GTTA for the longer 50-year RATPAC record. Because El Niño?Southern Oscillation is known to exercise a particularly strong influence in the tropics, we also compared the SOI with tropical temperature anomalies between 20°S and 20°N. The results showed that SOI accounted for 81% of the variance in tropospheric temperature anomalies in the tropics. Overall the results suggest that the Southern Oscillation exercises a consistently dominant influence on mean global temperature, with a maximum effect in the tropics, except for periods when equatorial volcanism causes ad hoc cooling. That mean global tropospheric temperature has for the last 50 years fallen and risen in close accord with the SOI of 5–7 months earlier shows the potential of natural forcing mechanisms to account for most of the temperature variation.
John H.
11 Sep 10 at 3:08 am
Here are hundreds of papers challenging AGW. Note how real climate deleted a comment by a John H. who claimed that there were plenty of sceptics out there … .
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
John H.
11 Sep 10 at 3:15 am
Excuse me John, but that is utter crap and is insulting.
Sorry Daddy Dave, that was not my intention.
John H.
11 Sep 10 at 3:27 am
JC is now peddling the “AGW is a cover for a communist and/or Nazi one world government argument.’
No proof – just his opinion, of course
rog
11 Sep 10 at 8:09 am
Shut up, rog. JC is right on the money when he said:
This is exactly what people should be thinking – accept current risk assessments as valid (but continue to re-assess as we go); reduce emissions by moving to nuclear. If the alarmists and denialists moved to this sensible middle ground, there wouldn’t be a problem.
Jarrah
11 Sep 10 at 8:46 am
Somhow human engenuity sorted it out. Whoda thought?
Yes, ingenuity sorted it out…. without the imposition of an unauditable, fraudulent “market based” system wherein Y2K credits were traded between shonks and the mafia (EU) who have no intention of tracking and accounting for them.
It is now well known that the EU system has traded the same “carbon credits” multiple times, against multiple emissions.
Now look at the US system – what is the price of carbon right now ? ($0.10 ?) What is the price proposed in the land of Oz ? ($29 ?) A slight gap wouldn’t you say ?
I’m sure with the application of government coercion in Oz, the US price will immediately jump to correctly reflect the price that the Oz government thinks it should be, because Oz politicians are always right, and pure, and noble.
Keith
11 Sep 10 at 8:53 am
Calling dover beach and others here who like Pielke Snr:
over at Skeptical Science, he’s been actively commenting in a recent post which criticised him for overstating the case on what’s been happening with ocean warming since 2004. (He says there is none; everyone else says there is no reason to be so confident based on the short timeframe and doubts about the adequacy of the measuring system).
Most interestingly, he says:
“Thus to conclude that I have ever not been concerned about the addition of CO2 and how it affects the climate system misrepresents my perspective. I am particularly concerned with respect to the biogeochemical effects of added CO2.” and
“In terms of CO2, we do not even need to discuss global warming to be concerned by uncontrolled increases in its atmospheric concentration. We see directly from observations of atmospheric concentrations of CO2 that humans are increasing its levels. If global warming were not occurring at all, we should still be concerned.”
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Pielke-Sr-and-scientific-equivocation-dont-beat-around-the-bush-Roger.html
Which is what I have been saying since, oh, 14 Nov 2006. (Although I have been persuaded since then that AGW itself is also a serious concern.)
So, Catallaxian skeptics (by which I mean “losers” – CL wants me to be less passive, you know), we can all stop this argument and move onto the issue of best policy to reduce CO2 promptly. Right?
steve from brisbane
11 Sep 10 at 9:02 am
Yeah Steve, you ‘move onto’ telling those wicked brown people in India and those evil Asians in China that they can’t have their industrial revolution like the white man because of teh warmening. I’m sure cap and trade and ETS ‘winners’ Barack Obama and Kevin Rudd will stand by you all the way. It is, after all, the Greatest Moral and Economic Challenge of Our Time.
C.L.
11 Sep 10 at 9:15 am
Direct observations of the global temp continue to diverge from the best models money can buy.
Every once in a while the models are adjusted to reflect recent observations, whereupon the divergence is minimized for a few more years.
Meanwhile in the UN dire predictions of doom fail to eventuate, and are simply re-projected into the future.
Eg. climate refugees – predicted to be 50 million by 2010. Yes, that would be today. Total refugee problem today as estimated by the UN – 11 million, and that’s with a few wars going.
The UN response : predict that there will be 150 million climate refugees by 2050.
Problem solved – alarmism maintained, rice bowls protected.
Keith
11 Sep 10 at 9:22 am
“those wicked brown people in India”
That’d be the ones next to those whose country has been under water for the last couple of weeks, hey CL?, in a flood of a kind that many think will become more common under AGW. (More heat, more humidity in the air, more unusual floods, of the kind that have been going on this year.)
steve from brisbane
11 Sep 10 at 9:34 am
Steve you forgot more earthquakes and tsunamis.
Chris M
11 Sep 10 at 10:05 am
Floods – Pakistan – another Pielke comments:
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/08/pakistans-floods.html
Myrddin Seren
11 Sep 10 at 10:39 am
Sorry Daddy Dave, that was not my intention.
No worries John. I can’t figure out your position because on the other hand you’re quoting studies that go against global warming.
climate refugees – predicted to be 50 million by 2010. Yes, that would be today.
Ha. But, shameless as they are they just move it 20 years into the future. But many of the predicted negative outcomes are classic examples of an irrefutable hypothesis.
Hurricanes in the Carribean, flooding in bangladesh, droughts and fires in rural Australia.
No shit, guys. Really.
daddy dave
11 Sep 10 at 10:42 am
JC is now peddling the “AGW is a cover for a communist and/or Nazi one world government argument.’
Wodgie, you dickead.
I was simply joshing around with THR’s comments.
You really are too stupid to be here.
JC
11 Sep 10 at 10:45 am
Nice try Steve from B regarding Pielke Sr.
That’d be the ones next to those whose country has been under water for the last couple of weeks, hey CL?, in a flood of a kind that many think will become more common under AGW.
Speculative drivel/dribble.
Is the guy behind the counter Steve from B?
It is precisely the antics of people like Steve from B that compel me to describe AGW as a ‘beat-up’.
http://lybio.net/pepsi-max-asteroide/commercials/
dover_beach
11 Sep 10 at 11:05 am
Sigh.
By your standards CL but most scientists now accept AGW is real …
Comment: Science is not about popularity, or consensus of view. It is about a methodology, and verifiable, repeatable results. The “methodology” of the IPCC is based on computer modelling, which is subject to GIGO and gives any result desired because it is MODELLING. And models are illustrative of an opinion. They are not proof. There is not even the consensus claimed, as a few minutes googling will show. The IPCC also bases its claims on such ‘scientific’ inputs as unsupported comments in climbing magazines, while its major scientific base, the CRU, it patently corrupt, has perverted the peer review process, suppressed contrary views, and has models revealed as purest garbage because they deliberately perverted their data. Read the CRU internal emails and the coder comments in the model code.
… and change is required.
Comment: Again, this is not demonstrably true, it is an opinion you happen to share. That’s fine, hold any opinion you want. But expect me to demand extraordinary proofs for extraordinary claims. And Lord, don’t the warmenistas make extraordinary claims. Like ‘the Arctic will be ice free in 2010′.
To to extend the analogy, those who now refute AGW are akin to Scientologists who repudiate psychiatry
Comment: The analogy is deeply insulting because it denies the validity of a contrary view while demanding the exact opposite in return. It is also a variant of Godwin’s Law.
Yet, this is a common trait among warmenista cultists – use of denigration vice logical discourse. What it really reveals is that the warmenista has insufficient knowledge to be able to enter logical discourse. Hence the return to the debating standards of the primary school playgound.
I have posed this to many envirodoomer AGW types over the last couple of years (Please note that I am NOT implying you are such an hysteric!). Not once has one tried to answer.
“During the Ordovician-Silurian (450-420mya) and Jurassic-Cretaceous (151-132mya), global glaciations occurred when atmospheric CO2 levels were over 4000ppmv and 2000ppmv respectively. (Ref: Berner, RA and Kothavala, Z., 2001, GeocarbIII: A Revised Model of Atmospheric CO2 over Phanerozoic Time, American Journal of Science 301, 182-204.)
Today it is below 400ppmv.
How and why did this occur, when the computer models you believe in assure us that over circa 450ppmv we will have runaway greenhouse, something which is completely unrepresented in the global geological record of the last 3800 million years? (which, BTW, is prior to the development of an O2-rich atmosphere)”
MarkL
Canberra
MarkL of Canberra
11 Sep 10 at 8:02 pm
Steve Kates, one could almost accuse you of trolling, given your manner of posting provocations and then staying silent when challenged. Several people answer in good faith, but you stay away. What are you afraid of?
Jarrah
11 Sep 10 at 9:45 pm
Comment: The analogy is deeply insulting because it denies the validity of a contrary view while demanding the exact opposite in return. It is also a variant of Godwin’s Law.
Yet, this is a common trait among warmenista cultists – use of denigration vice logical discourse. What it really reveals is that the warmenista has insufficient knowledge to be able to enter logical discourse. Hence the return to the debating standards of the primary school playgound.
Is your working memory completely fucked? You have completely contradicted yourself in the space of a paragraph.
John H.
12 Sep 10 at 8:22 pm
I question your basic comprehension of simple concepts, John.
I’ll dumb it down as far as possible for you.
X says to Y that Y’s view cannot be valid because it contradict’s the view of X. (You’re wrong, I’m right, you can never be right)
X then simultaneously demands that Y accept X’s view as valid even though it contradicts Y’s own opinion. (You’ve gotta believe what I say, because I said it and because you can never be right.)
Y refuses to do this. (Sod off, swampy)
X then abuses Y. (Your are a ****!)
My little daughter understands this because I asked her to dumb down my original words so that you’d comprehend them.
Have a go and see if you can understand what my little girl got right off the bat.
MarkL
canberra.
MarkL of Canberra
13 Sep 10 at 8:48 pm