What Carbon

[medhead]

Where exactly do I make that statement? I see you making that statement repeatedly, perhaps you are getting confused?

I have provided the exact quote from your post. All you have to do is read.

As for you subsequent posts. Once again, as I've demonstrated by quotes, I compared the relative size of import versus local production. (I even quoted my source for production numbers.) however, That is not an analysis of carbon emissions no matter how much you wish it was.

The only failure to debate here is yours. Until you demonstrate a basic ability to engage in debate and follow the discussion without descending I personal abide there is nothing more to say.

 

[RAM]

And reviewing the thread, plus of course BREE quarterly reporting. I stand by my previous 100%, regardless of nitpicking about numbers, China is hardly going to be scared of those a hypothetical green-hippy government cutting supply.

Standing by numbers shown to be wrong is indeed a strong commitment.

However as the eternal optimist that anyone can be educated with enough effort, here is yet another source disproving a few more of your unsubstantiated claims. It covers calendar 2012 and breaks out the Steaming coal (power generation) from Metallurgical coal (Steel). The figures for 2013 and 2014 are significantly greater again (as linked to in previous posts).

China needs to keep the lights on. A power outage, for example at an Aluminum smelter requires every pot line to be replaced at a cost in the hundred's of millions. China is the world's largest producer of Aluminum. In fact it produces MORE than the rest of the world combined. Aluminum is referred to within the industry as solid electricity.

So, cutting off 7 to 10% of coal supplies would be a huge deal to China. Cutting off the high quality coal supplied (Australian) would be close to half of all coal imports. That is why so many Chinese Govt sponsored entities have been purchasing or trying to purchase Australian coal fields as well as others. Indonesia is not quite as silly as Australia about losing control.

Link from coal burning to carbon emissions - do you really need to be told?
Adding 3 Giga Watt of coal burning power stations every month in China for 8 years does increase carbon emissions immensely. To get an idea of the scale - (quoted previously but you did not acknowledge it) China is building the equivalent to Australia's total in-situ coal-fired power station capacity every 8 months.

So please Medhead answer this question with either "Yes" or "No". Does Australia cutting its emissions in total by the equivalent of two months of Australia's coal-fired power plant emissions offset the impact of China's 5x increase in carbon emissions (of Australia's levels) every 8 months.

Just a simple "Yes" or "No" will suffice. Perhaps just reply with the blue text in your quote alone.

 

[RAM]

I have provided the exact quote from your post. All you have to do is read.

As for you subsequent posts. Once again, as I've demonstrated by quotes, I compared the relative size of import versus local production. (I even quoted my source for production numbers.) however, That is not an analysis of carbon emissions no matter how much you wish it was.

The only failure to debate here is yours. Until you demonstrate a basic ability to engage in debate and follow the discussion without descending I personal abide there is nothing more to say.

Yes Medhead you quoted your source and I went and got their numbers etc and they were different to yours.

You then said whether 0.6% or 5% is just nit-picking - the closest apparently to saying your numbers were wrong I suppose.

What I seek is honesty in debate, something that is all too lacking at the Government/Opposition level but normally is apparent on this forum.

 

[medhead]

Try googling BREE and then you will see that Australia does not provide 7-10% of China's coal. And ignoring the fact that mettalurgical coal isn't used to keep the lights on.

You certainly haven't demonstrated my numbers to be incorrect. .

I've said nothing about the question you pose, it is irrelevant to my point about China not being scared to lose imports.

 

[RAM]

Try googling BREE and then you will see that Australia does not provide 7-10% of China's coal. And ignoring the fact that mettalurgical coal isn't used to keep the lights on.

You certainly haven't demonstrated my numbers to be incorrect. .

I've said nothing about the question you pose, it is irrelevant to my point about China not being scared to lose imports.

Correct - but it has everything to do with your previous posts.

 

[medhead]

Correct - but it has everything to do with your previous posts.

The question actually has more to do with your posts. It has almost nothing to do with my posts in this thread. But it is funny that you attack me for not answering an irrelevant question but refuse to answer the questions I've asked of your post.

 

[RAM]

Medhead, have you ever sold a Norwegian Blue Parrot by any chance?

 

[amaroo]

Hmmm ...Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

THE Bureau of Meteorology has been accused of manipulating historic temperature records to fit a predetermined view of global warming.

Researcher Jennifer Marohasy claims the adjusted records resemble “propaganda” rather than science.

Dr Marohasy has analysed the raw data from dozens of locations across Australia and matched it against the new data used by BOM showing that temperatures were progressively warming.

In many cases, Dr Marohasy said, temperature trends had changed from slight cooling to dramatic warming over 100 years.

 

[Moody]

I don't subscribe to the clmate denial bible, so I can't read the article. But JM is a well-known skeptic whose work is often funded by organisations that share her belief, whereas the BOM is supposedly apolitical. Without hard evidence I would tend to believe this is the Australian up to its normal journalistic standards on the subject of climate change.


Is there a non-paywall option?

 

[medhead]

I don't subscribe to the clmate denial bible, so I can't read the article. But JM is a well-known skeptic whose work is often funded by organisations that share her belief, whereas the BOM is supposedly apolitical. Without hard evidence I would tend to believe this is the Australian up to its normal journalistic standards on the subject of climate change.


Is there a non-paywall option?

Usually if you google the title that will get passed the paywall

But the articles make me think of my business. The instruments were use often have a calibration factor, a factor to correct the displayed number match the actual amount. The instrument often can't be adjusted to include the required correction. Meaning there will be a whole heap of numbers measured that still need to be different. Some journalist getting those numbers and making a massive song and dance because the scientists have told them a different number; just highlights the journalist's ignorance and arrogance.

 

[RAM]

I don't subscribe to the clmate denial bible, so I can't read the article. But JM is a well-known skeptic whose work is often funded by organisations that share her belief, whereas the BOM is supposedly apolitical. Without hard evidence I would tend to believe this is the Australian up to its normal journalistic standards on the subject of climate change.


Is there a non-paywall option?

As you are such an even-handed soul - of course you do not believe nor subscribe to organisations that are funded by companies profiting from the mandated (induced by man as opposed to that which has occurred for millennia) climate change?

For example, you probably remember the 'Climategate' affair predominantly out of the UK where a group of Universities altered the figures to get the result out of a supposed real-life temperature database used to 'prove' certain claims?

They went on to threaten to withdraw from and block certain scientific periodicals if they included climate change denier's work.

It is getting more difficult to know what 'hard data' looks like anymore. Did you see the article over the weekend about the Australian Weather data found to be suspect?

 

[RAM]

Usually if you google the title that will get passed the paywall

But the articles make me think of my business. The instruments were use often have a calibration factor, a factor to correct the displayed number match the actual amount. The instrument often can't be adjusted to include the required correction. Meaning there will be a whole heap of numbers measured that still need to be different. Some journalist getting those numbers and making a massive song and dance because the scientists have told them a different number; just highlights the journalist's ignorance and arrogance.

As opposed to deliberate falsification of course, or errors in analysis (repeated innocent errors)?

Such as 'Climategate'? 245D? 245DT? Port Botany contamination levels?

Of course theses people must be obeid!

 

[medhead]

Interesting rebuttal of said story in today's Australian. Hard to precisely understand the story due to poor writing but the crux was that the nah sayer did not have her work peer reviewed. There's a shock.

 

[Moody]

As you are such an even-handed soul - of course you do not believe nor subscribe to organisations that are funded by companies profiting from the mandated (induced by man as opposed to that which has occurred for millennia) climate change?

Sorry - you've lost me there. Can someone please translate?

For example, you probably remember the 'Climategate' affair predominantly out of the UK where a group of Universities altered the figures to get the result out of a supposed real-life temperature database used to 'prove' certain claims?

They went on to threaten to withdraw from and block certain scientific periodicals if they included climate change denier's work.

I didn't pay it much attention at the time, but if you insist I will check it out. [5 minutes later]. OK - I have found a good analysis here :-

What do the 'Climategate' hacked CRU emails tell us?

It is getting more difficult to know what 'hard data' looks like anymore. Did you see the article over the weekend about the Australian Weather data found to be suspect?

I did eventually get to read the article. Seemed to be another unsubstantiated beat-up (like Climategate) - but I would be keen to hear your analysis of the "hard data".

 

[whatmeworry]

Science over the ages.

 

[medhead]

Or this......
View attachment 34568

 

[drron]

Of course before Columbus 97% of experts thought the world was flat.
That 97% figure is hot air.It first came about from an MSc thesis paper.That got debunked so another study came up with the same figure.that also was debunked so last year Dr Cook from Townsville did a study and wow came up with the same figure.Not helped though by some he put in the 97% publicly said that is not what they believe.
So some links-
What else did the ‘97% of scientists’ say? | Watts Up With That?
Now that is a sceptical blog so many will reject it out of hand but many links there to evidence against the 97% figure.
So to a letter signed by 16 scientists to the WSJ including a former head of Climate Research at BOM-
Sixteen Concerned Scientists: No Need to Panic About Global Warming - WSJ

But of course 16 is not many scientists.Unfortunately there is a petition out there signed by over 30,000 American scientists-

Global Warming Petition Project

It goes on to give a summary of the evidence on Global Warming.

 

[Moody]

Of course before Columbus 97% of experts thought the world was flat.
That 97% figure is hot air.It first came about from an MSc thesis paper.That got debunked so another study came up with the same figure.that also was debunked so last year Dr Cook from Townsville did a study and wow came up with the same figure.Not helped though by some he put in the 97% publicly said that is not what they believe.
So some links-
What else did the ‘97% of scientists’ say? | Watts Up With That?
Now that is a sceptical blog so many will reject it out of hand but many links there to evidence against the 97% figure.
So to a letter signed by 16 scientists to the WSJ including a former head of Climate Research at BOM-
Sixteen Concerned Scientists: No Need to Panic About Global Warming - WSJ

But of course 16 is not many scientists.Unfortunately there is a petition out there signed by over 30,000 American scientists-

Global Warming Petition Project

It goes on to give a summary of the evidence on Global Warming.

30,000??? Meh! More than 100 times that number aren't convinced that the moon landings weren't faked. We are not talking about intellectual giants here but the people who made George W Bush their president. Twice!

 

[RAM]

30,000??? Meh! More than 100 times that number aren't convinced that the moon landings weren't faked. We are not talking about intellectual giants here but the people who made George W Bush their president. Twice!

or Barack Obama (Yes I can promise everything, get the Nobel prize before doing anything but getting elected and not deliver..) or John Howard or Kevin Rudd...

thin ice (due to global warming of course) springs to mind!

 

[medhead]

Of course before Columbus 97% of experts thought the world was flat.

Who's making up numbers? This is just plain wrong.

According to Stephen Jay Gould, "there never was a period of 'flat earth darkness' among scholars (regardless of how the public at large may have conceptualized our planet both then and now). Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the Earth's roundness as an established fact of cosmology."[SUP][3][/SUP] Historians of science David Lindberg and Ronald Numbers point out that "there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [Earth's] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference"

Myth of the Flat Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I guess your practising the same standard as having a physicist claim to know anything about the available evidence in a completely separate field. Just make it up. Very easy to yet again reject the stuff that you just pull out of thin air.

But it's a good analogy for climate change. Perhaps 97% of the public though the world was flat despite what the experts told them. This is exactly what we have now, football coach lead public opinion denying the science.