Know the Enemy

[TimiBoy]

Don't know if you looked more but this link, off the NZ site is one of the better attempts at explaining the junk science used by the Carbon/Climate change "industry".

The authors even acknowledge the shortcomings of their own position but any balanced and fair reading of the paper would have to have even the most CC converted asking questions.

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

Having read this article, one thing is proven. There are reputable scientists who DO refute Man Made Global Warming Theory.

It does not necessarily discredit those who are for the theory, but it does postulate, and backs with good science, a very powerful alternative, that warming is caused by the Sun. Hey, that makes sense doesn't it?

It does show that there is a very good alternative theory, and it is also quite scary. I don't have time to discuss it. Read it yourself. Please.

Cheers,

Tim

[kc]

I found it that way too Tim. A credible alternative theory to the Carbon induced Climate Change doomsday model.

If authors bio

James A. Peden - better known as Jim or "Dad" - Webmaster of Middlebury Networks and Editor of the Middlebury Community Network, spent some of his earlier years as an Atmospheric Physicist at the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh and Extranuclear Laboratories in Blawnox, Pennsylvania, studying ion-molecule reactions in the upper atmosphere. As a student, he was elected to both the National Physics Honor Society and the National Mathematics Honor Fraternity, and was President of the Student Section of the American Institute of Physics. He was a founding member of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry, and a member of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. His thesis on charge transfer reactions in the upper atmosphere was co-published in part in the prestigious Journal of Chemical Physics. The results obtained by himself and his colleagues at the University of Pittsburgh remain today as the gold standard in the AstroChemistry Database. He was a co-developer of the Modulated Beam Quadrupole Mass Spectrometer, declared one of the "100 Most Significant Technical Developments of the Year" and displayed at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago.

Seems to suggest this is a pretty well qualified fellow.....no doubt in the employ of the evil energy industry !!

The clear case he makes is that increased CO2 levels are a consequence of warming not a cause and that a small increase in CO2 is a good thing, not a sky is falling outcome. He also makes the point, a point ignore by the CC deciples, that for every shinking glacier, more are growing. For the reduced Arctic Ice Cap of 2007 summer the antarctic cap was the largest in recorded history. This is the issue I have always taken with the CC model. Selective use of data. Just as selective use of data has been used in fisheries "management".

This is a fishing web site but there are clear links here between the methods used to justify fisheries closures and the methods used foistering this hoax.....and for that matter the Y2K hoax when "every credible computer programer in the world" taked up the millenium bug.

As I said earlier, any read of this should cause any reasoned thinker to question the CC/carbon link. It might not suit the evangalistic climate change crusaders but surely it has to raise some red flags.

I for one think that cutting back fossil fuel usage has to be a good thing. It is obviuos on the TV every day what is going on in China. Cleaner options are just better options but the crusade towards a carbon trading scheme, all in the name of saving the planet really has become a new religion and pity help anyone who dares be a heritic.

I think all of us should have an open mind. Do we cling to "denial" information because we want everything to be right or do we want to be informed of alternative theory? Seems to me the CC evangalists take the same view as any zealots.........entertain no alternatives.

KC

[Jeremy87]

Having read this article, one thing is proven. There are reputable scientists who DO refute Man Made Global Warming Theory.

It does not necessarily discredit those who are for the theory, but it does postulate, and backs with good science, a very powerful alternative, that warming is caused by the Sun. Hey, that makes sense doesn't it?

It does show that there is a very good alternative theory, and it is also quite scary. I don't have time to discuss it. Read it yourself. Please.

Cheers,

Tim

Yeh i read it. I reakon the writers got cheek criticising that paper for not being pier reviewed when his spiel doesn't even reference its data sources nor has he encapsulated his figures with appropriate explanations of the sources origin. Climate is variable, you can't look at temperature in one place over x many years and say this is what is happening over the whole world. It might be cooler over here, warmer over here and the same temperature over there. It's very easy to make a case for just about anything if you only use data that suits you. Anyway my point climate has changed this guy even agree's with that much. Whether it is anthropogenic or natural is debatable but to a certain extent irrelevent. What is relevent is is finding out what the repercussions are of this climate shift and how we are going to respond to it.

[kc]

Jeremy you hit it on the head exactly "it's very easy to make a case for just about anything if you use the data that suits you".

Here bloody here.

For what it's worth I agree with you. Any of us can look into our own back yards and see a need for change. Change the way we look after our environment, our fishery and our use of energy/fossil fuel We don't need science, peer reviewed or otherwise to recognise we can do things better and get a better outcome.

What has always bugged me is that the science of climate change, just as has been the science of MPA's is at best "selective" and at worst plain bald faced deception.

I notice, having a dig around the web that the Manhattan declaration by a group of scenitists, made after an international climate change conference, puts forward an alternate view to the IPPC and this "group" is then dubbed the "Evil Twin Brother to the IPPC"...............this is unbeliavable media biaise, despite the actual position having some merit the media only wants to shoot the messanger, not report what they have to say or why. Yet at the same time we are told "the science is settled"....No it's not! In fact more and more "sceptics" seem to be arising within the science community itself. Are they all wrong?

Why is it that anyone offering a disenting view is howled down rather than have their theory and science debated?

Seems to me the best way to shoot down the climate change sceptics would be to disprove "their" science, yet something as simple as the carbon dioxide level following, not leading any warming of the planet seems unable to be contadicted, yet we continue with this absurd carbon trading scheme, which WILL costs us all and that seems to be a fact everyone agrees with.

Here seems to be a couple of clear "facts" (and I use this term ready to be howled down).

* History shows atmospheric carbon di-oxide is a consequence of temperature increase not a cause.
* The infamous "hockey stick" warming graph, used so graphically by Al Gore, has been proven (at law) to be incorrect.
* Temperature, at a global level, has been falling over the last 3 years not rising.
* At a global level polar ice caps and glacier cover are actually increasing

If the climate change debate has done anything it has caused every one of us to look at little closer at our own backyard and look after our environment a little better and that can only be a good thing.

If the next step takes us to a point of absurdity and allows our economy and lifestyle to be ruined by a few zealots and complient media who love a nice juicey doomsday scenario then that destroys any good our environmental awakening has achieved.

For the time being the popular media will continue to push the doomsday theory. It sells papers and everyone loves good "chicken little" story.
The media was full of Y2K articles and yet when it didn't happen, hardly a word.

I'm sick to death of the propogander about the reef dying out, and the absolute bul%$%$# about fish stock levels recovering after green zones. Now even crown of thorns have been stopped by green zones, green zones will stop the effects of climate change and yes...wait for it....(true) the green zones will lead to a cure for cancer (I kid you not....this was one newspaper marine science puff piece).

The absolute beauty with the whole CC rubbish is when nothing happens the CC brigade will be able to say. Look.....told you....if we hadn't changed our ways we would have all been doomed....no time lines (like Y2K) and just an ongoing gravey train for the "sceince" community/marine parks community.

In business we operate on budgets and with key performance indicators. The CC model is an open cheque book with absolutely no accountability. A bunch of kids loose in a lolly shop.

Regards

KC

[TimiBoy]

Yes it's amazing that if you don't jump on the CC bandwagon you are assumed to not care about the environment at all. I care very deeply. I have protested on it's behalf (looong ago, I will admit) and I am deeply concerned about the crap we pump into it, and the stuff we take out of it.

But not so much that I am prepared to throw away a pretty workable lifestyle on the basis of a poorly constructed freak show. It has failed to convince me, and has failed to convince a lot of people who are significantly better educated than I. It's poster boy (Big Al) should be wrapped in celluloid and set on fire, because his production really is the worst kind of populist crap.

What if in a few years it becomes obvious that we really have entered a cooling cycle? It'd be really good if we were working hard to develop plants which will yield well at low temperatures, with a consequent low CO2 count. I will be among the first to kill, skin, tan and wear a GW focussed Greenie to keep warm.

I am actually very, very worried about the implications on the local economy when we start our carbon trading scheme ahead of the rest of the world. The only place we will lead the world is down the gurgler. They will stand and laugh at us while all our best industries jump ship to cheaper climes. Does KRUDD own a violin? I bet he'll stand there fiddling while the Australian economy burns...

Tim

[Atriplex]

Jeremy you hit it on the head exactly "it's very easy to make a case for just about anything if you use the data that suits you".

Here bloody here.

For what it's worth I agree with you. Any of us can look into our own back yards and see a need for change. Change the way we look after our environment, our fishery and our use of energy/fossil fuel We don't need science, peer reviewed or otherwise to recognise we can do things better and get a better outcome.

What has always bugged me is that the science of climate change, just as has been the science of MPA's is at best "selective" and at worst plain bald faced deception.

I notice, having a dig around the web that the Manhattan declaration by a group of scenitists, made after an international climate change conference, puts forward an alternate view to the IPPC and this "group" is then dubbed the "Evil Twin Brother to the IPPC"...............this is unbeliavable media biaise, despite the actual position having some merit the media only wants to shoot the messanger, not report what they have to say or why. Yet at the same time we are told "the science is settled"....No it's not! In fact more and more "sceptics" seem to be arising within the science community itself. Are they all wrong?

Why is it that anyone offering a disenting view is howled down rather than have their theory and science debated?

Seems to me the best way to shoot down the climate change sceptics would be to disprove "their" science, yet something as simple as the carbon dioxide level following, not leading any warming of the planet seems unable to be contadicted, yet we continue with this absurd carbon trading scheme, which WILL costs us all and that seems to be a fact everyone agrees with.

Here seems to be a couple of clear "facts" (and I use this term ready to be howled down).

* History shows atmospheric carbon di-oxide is a consequence of temperature increase not a cause.
* The infamous "hockey stick" warming graph, used so graphically by Al Gore, has been proven (at law) to be incorrect.
* Temperature, at a global level, has been falling over the last 3 years not rising.
* At a global level polar ice caps and glacier cover are actually increasing

If the climate change debate has done anything it has caused every one of us to look at little closer at our own backyard and look after our environment a little better and that can only be a good thing.

If the next step takes us to a point of absurdity and allows our economy and lifestyle to be ruined by a few zealots and complient media who love a nice juicey doomsday scenario then that destroys any good our environmental awakening has achieved.

For the time being the popular media will continue to push the doomsday theory. It sells papers and everyone loves good "chicken little" story.
The media was full of Y2K articles and yet when it didn't happen, hardly a word.

I'm sick to death of the propogander about the reef dying out, and the absolute bul%$%$# about fish stock levels recovering after green zones. Now even crown of thorns have been stopped by green zones, green zones will stop the effects of climate change and yes...wait for it....(true) the green zones will lead to a cure for cancer (I kid you not....this was one newspaper marine science puff piece).

The absolute beauty with the whole CC rubbish is when nothing happens the CC brigade will be able to say. Look.....told you....if we hadn't changed our ways we would have all been doomed....no time lines (like Y2K) and just an ongoing gravey train for the "sceince" community/marine parks community.

In business we operate on budgets and with key performance indicators. The CC model is an open cheque book with absolutely no accountability. A bunch of kids loose in a lolly shop.

Regards

KC

That's a good read.

I agree with most of what you say, but I don't agree with the last bit of what you said: that acting upon Climate Change will lead to misery (or a less happy lifestyle).

"If the next step takes us to a point of absurdity and allows our economy and lifestyle to be ruined by a few zealots and complient media who love a nice juicey doomsday scenario then that destroys any good our environmental awakening has achieved."

I take issue with the above statement especially. I understand that you are exagerrating things a little bit (?), but the next step in improving the environment is to turn to reknewable energies. This is what the Rudd government has said. Their actions are questionable though. I believe that the whole idea behind an emmissions trading scheme is to alleviate the pains of change. The Rudd government would like to see the coal companies continue to make as much money as possible. And this is what the emissions trading scheme will provide: an excuse for the big emmiters to keep on emmiting for longer.

If you disagree with me please say so? But, if you don't mind could I ask you a silly question: how exactly do you think being environmentally conscious/aware/active will affect you. I'm not implying anything here, I would like to know, is it because of the proposed taxes on environmentally unfriendly things?

[Atriplex]

Yes it's amazing that if you don't jump on the CC bandwagon you are assumed to not care about the environment at all. I care very deeply. I have protested on it's behalf (looong ago, I will admit) and I am deeply concerned about the crap we pump into it, and the stuff we take out of it.

But not so much that I am prepared to throw away a pretty workable lifestyle on the basis of a poorly constructed freak show. It has failed to convince me, and has failed to convince a lot of people who are significantly better educated than I. It's poster boy (Big Al) should be wrapped in celluloid and set on fire, because his production really is the worst kind of populist crap.

What if in a few years it becomes obvious that we really have entered a cooling cycle? It'd be really good if we were working hard to develop plants which will yield well at low temperatures, with a consequent low CO2 count. I will be among the first to kill, skin, tan and wear a GW focussed Greenie to keep warm.

I am actually very, very worried about the implications on the local economy when we start our carbon trading scheme ahead of the rest of the world. The only place we will lead the world is down the gurgler. They will stand and laugh at us while all our best industries jump ship to cheaper climes. Does KRUDD own a violin? I bet he'll stand there fiddling while the Australian economy burns...

Tim

European Union Emission Trading Scheme.

Never heard of it?

We are not starting well ahead of the rest, we are starting well behind other nations. It started in 2005.

Need I hammer the point home?

[Mike Delisser]

I notice, having a dig around the web that the Manhattan declaration by a group of scenitists, made after an international climate change conference, puts forward an alternate view to the IPPC and this "group" is then dubbed the "Evil Twin Brother to the IPPC"...............this is unbeliavable media biaise,
Regards
KC

KC can you show me somewhere this "Group" has been dubbed the "Evil twin brother to the IPPC"?

[kc]

www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/10/nipcc_manhattan_declaration/ - 32k

KC

[kc]

No. It's because of taxes on ordinary things...like transport and electricity, which flows on to every day prices, fuel costs and everything "we" do which requires energy...just the very act of sitting here on a computer will cost more.

If my prices go up do my customer numbers go down? One would expect so. If business suffers do I lay off staff? Yep! If unemployment goes up does business suffer. Yep! If the coal/mining industry driven wealth boom our country enjoys suffers do all our way of lives suffer. Yep! Do house prices fall in this environment. Yep. Do bank foreclosures increase. Yep! Will a stupid tax on emmitting a harmless gas acheive anything positive. NO

[PinHead]

"renewable energy"..there is another term that keeps cropping up...other than nuclear there is no other source of electricity that is effective and relatively inexpensive...and that can meet the requirements of the populace.

[Mike Delisser]

www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/10/nipcc_manhattan_declaration/ - 32k

KC

Thanks KC--- It seems like a crack pot site don't you think,

However, you do know who paid for the Manhattan Declaration don't you???
That could explain why HL Mencken (the "good read" at the start of this post) has concluded that there's nothing wrong with passive smoking in his article.

Me thinks scientists don't come cheap on either side of the fence

[kc]

Not the point and I don't like smoking either. The point is media, in general, love a good global warming doomsday story but almost ignore any alternate view.

It seems pretty well acknowledged, for example, that CO2 follows, not leads any increase in temperature cycles and yet the media still perpetuate the myth that CO2 is causing CC.

This may be a "crackpot site".....don't know, but here it sits on page 1 of Google as a commentary on the Manhattan Declaration.

KC

[TimiBoy]

European Union Emission Trading Scheme.

Never heard of it?

We are not starting well ahead of the rest, we are starting well behind other nations. It started in 2005.

Need I hammer the point home?

I stand corrected, we will not be the first. Thanks for that!

The EU system appears quite similar to what we will have here. They are, however, implementing it in stages, with the first complete after 3 years (2005-7, covering big power generation, iron, steel and combustion plants and selected high emission production.

In the second stage, NO2 will be included, from 2008-12, with slight increases in National targets within the EU.

This is a phased introduction, with intensive review, designed to minimise economic impact. The EU acknowledge the limited scope of their ETS, and are looking to broaden it in 2013.

Is the same intended here? It doesn't look like it. I see fundamental differences between the EU and Australian models. While I am no expert (far from it) it appears the Australian model is a far deeper and broader example, but doesn't include coal... I smell politics.

Our scheme also will be the first in our sphere of economic influence, which validates the idea of our prices being forced up, and business being forced overseas.

It is certainly a valid process from the perspective that we will reduce the level of filth being poured into the environment. IF you believe that CO2 is filth, which I cannot see has been proven.

Alternate views would suggest that perhaps we should be targeting other gasses. Indeed there is a strong argument that we are targeting the wrong gas. But the politics of the Greens and the Labour Party are in the way.

Hell, this and we want to introduce Ethanol (which is 1.7 times as good at making photo chemical smog than petrol, I read in another thread. Politics again...)

So what should we do? Keep reading, keep learning, and keep discussing, because our Government and our Electorate need to gain wisdom on this, and stop getting their knowledge from the media bandwagon.

Cheers,

Tim

[Mike Delisser]

Kc how can you use being on page 1 of Google as an example that alternitive views of the Manhattan Dec suffer from "unbeliavable media biaise" when your example sits at the end of the page following several pro Manhattan Dec sites.
I just checked out some of this weeks papers and the wieght of articles that shone a bad light on Aus moving to a carbon trading sceme massively outnumbered any pro trading sceme stories. This was in the Courier Mail, the paper that we're told on Ausfish likes to ram their pro green pro Rud agenda down our throats.
I try to stay open minded on the CC issue ("try") but some on Ausfish want to have their cake and eat it 2. Many here (on both sides of the CC and political debate) seem to be of the opinion that only their road is the right one and all sience that they don't agree with is corrupt, all media that doesn't report their side the way they'd like it is biased.
It seems to me that the "possie" has just about scared all but Atriplex and a few of his mates off the fishing news pages but then again that could be what they want. The problem with that is when you need to get some info out to the masses you'll only be preaching to the converted.
Cheers
Mike