What Carbon

[Moody]

Boy Moody you sure have proved my point.
Warmists denigrate and are very good at it.Lack a bit in commonsense though.

Boy drron you sure have proved my point.
Denialist lie and are very good at it. Lack a bit in integrity though.

...

 

[amaroo]

We have managed to get our Adelaide office and warehouse over the line for solar by using an energy auditor to get our usage under the threshold to qualify for the full saving.
In Queensland the solar installation is done but they want a month to inspect it which is amazing.

Just in time for the QLD season. Will be a cracking couple of days over here.....my little 7KW system is climbing towards 40KW per day @ $0.52/kw :mrgreen:

 

[medhead]

If that is how you want to react that is your choice.

But no, the point is to your earlier arguments - what the rest of the world is doing does matter.

Acting in isolation is acting in ignorance.

Appeasement is often just a costly futile adventure that results in a worse outcome.

Ruining your economy (putting up costs) while another is happy to supply you while at the same time generating more global impacting pollutants is neither logical nor practical.

Actually do nothing is your argument.

The massive problem with your position is the rest of the world is doing something.

Fundamental fail on your part. Bit like how you call people fools and then get all uppity about being debunked.

Yet again I have already posted a link to scientific, peer reviewed research that shows the carbon tax did reduce pollution. That fact remains unchanged regardless of how often you say it didn't.

 

[medhead]

Danger, Will Robinson!

It appears some here can't read articles without posting a bucket of vile and insults I suppose it's entertainment - if you're into juvenile behaviour.

It also seems the some here can't post or acknowledge the rebuttal articles to the links they post. Juvenile is to ignore the lack of scientific basis for the articles that you present and to accuse anyone would mentions the failure of that approach of posting insults and vile.

 

[drron]

It also seems the some here can't post or acknowledge the rebuttal articles to the links they post. Juvenile is to ignore the lack of scientific basis for the articles that you present and to accuse anyone would mentions the failure of that approach of posting insults and vile.

Medhead I prefer arguing with you.I gave Moody 3 quotes from the IPCC latest scientific working party on extreme weather and she calls me a denialist lier-plus a lot more that has been redacted.
Even I dont call the IPCC scientists liers.

 

[amaroo]

It also seems the some here can't post or acknowledge the rebuttal articles to the links they post. Juvenile is to ignore the lack of scientific basis for the articles that you present and to accuse anyone would mentions the failure of that approach of posting insults and vile.

I've missed you MH - welcome back.

 

[medhead]

No one misses me. Or they miss me like they miss a hole in the head.

 

[medhead]

Even I dont call the IPCC scientists liers.

But did you call them liars?

 

[drron]

But did you call them liars?

Oh no the grammar police are on to me.
Was tempted to write grammer!

 

[medhead]

Oh no the grammar police are on to me.
Was tempted to write grammer!

Well technically it's not grammar that is the issue, but spelling.

Unless you're concerned the IPCC are pro-German. :?:

Or perhaps seat recliners.

Dictionary.reference.com/browse/lier

 

[OATEK]

No one misses me. Or they miss me like they miss a hole in the head.

Don't sell yourself short. Amaroo was not the only one who wondered when we would hear from you again...

As regards the question at hand, climate science is something that is building up, but we do not yet have the same evidence base as we do in other areas of science, and the same applies to carbon taxes and pollution rates.

I am not sure that all the drop in pollution will have been due to the tax, some may relate to economic activity or other variables. But the tax may have created an environment where investment and production decisions were made against different variables than in the past, and the carbon tax may yet prove to have been the biggest driver.

I am sure Drron could point to instances in medical practice where changes in treatment have produced different outcomes, yet the reasons those changes may have worked are not agreed or fully understood. There will be a lot more analysis needed before all the facts can be elicited from the hypotheses, reasoned argument and conjecture. Makes for a great discussion point when you think you don't have much in common with others say at a function or party, but like any discussion of personal opinions I think we can have an interesting debate if we can tolerate a mix of views.

 

[medhead]

Don't sell yourself short. Amaroo was not the only one who wondered when we would hear from you again...

As regards the question at hand, climate science is something that is building up, but we do not yet have the same evidence base as we do in other areas of science, and the same applies to carbon taxes and pollution rates.

I am not sure that all the drop in pollution will have been due to the tax, some may relate to economic activity or other variables. But the tax may have created an environment where investment and production decisions were made against different variables than in the past, and the carbon tax may yet prove to have been the biggest driver.

I am sure Drron could point to instances in medical practice where changes in treatment have produced different outcomes, yet the reasons those changes may have worked are not agreed or fully understood. There will be a lot more analysis needed before all the facts can be elicited from the hypotheses, reasoned argument and conjecture. Makes for a great discussion point when you think you don't have much in common with others say at a function or party, but like any discussion of personal opinions I think we can have an interesting debate if we can tolerate a mix of views.

It's so long since I posted the article in question. And no one seems to want to discuss it. But my recollection was that they tried to account for other factors.

As for Drron. I can only agree with his attack on the IPCC as a mob of seat recliners.

 

[Moody]

Medhead I prefer arguing with you.I gave Moody 3 quotes from the IPCC latest scientific working party on extreme weather and she calls me a denialist lier-plus a lot more that has been redacted.
Even I dont call the IPCC scientists liers.

Medhead is more tolerant of being misrepresented - I am not quite so kind <redacted>

I had no problem with the quotes you provided, and if your main intention was to prove that Al Gore is drawing a long bow in claiming that extreme weather events are an inevitable consequence of global warming .... then I agree with you.

What I don't agree with is the huge backflip in logic that concludes we should do nothing about the climate change we are causing. Using Al Gore's untested pessimism (and I hope he is wrong for all our sakes), or the fact that raw data is adjusted for known and valid reasons, or that last years' modelling did not predict the future with 100% accuracy, or whatever .......is concluding evidence that 97% of climate scientists are corrupt and perpetuating a conspiracy to make us all poor??!???

<redacted> So I hope you will join me in castigating liars from both sides.

 

[medhead]

Medhead is more tolerant of being misrepresented - I am not quite so kind to animals.

I had no problem with the quotes you provided, and if your main intention was to prove that Al Gore is drawing a long bow in claiming that extreme weather events are an inevitable consequence of global warming .... then I agree with you.

What I don't agree with is the huge backflip in logic that concludes we should do nothing about the climate change we are causing. Using Al Gore's untested pessimism (and I hope he is wrong for all our sakes), or the fact that raw data is adjusted for known and valid reasons, or that last years' modelling did not predict the future with 100% accuracy, or whatever .......is concluding evidence that 97% of climate scientists are corrupt and perpetuating a conspiracy to make us all poor??!???

That is truly moronic, wouldn't you agree? So I hope you will join me in castigating liars from both sides.

I've just, finally, decided not to be bothered. Recently caught up with someone from uni I hadn't seen for about 20 years. They mentioned how they like my complete intolerance for the moronic. I guess I'm working on that tendency.

I do have great difficulty with the suggestion that the science must be completely ignored because a model designed to track long term trends doesn't predict short term trends, while ignoring that short term models do exist and they are accurate.

I also have difficulty with the idea that Australia shouldn't do everything to reduce pollution. Or the idea that the carbon tax did nothing followed by gloating about how those very people have acted because of the carbon tax.

I have difficulty with the idea that a country that has 25 times the [-]pollution[/-] population (!! Mutter grumble autocorrect) of Australia, that manufacturers a significant amount of the goods that Australia consumes is not allowed to create more pollution in gross terms than Australia. That we ignore that most of that pollution should be attached the exported goods and assigned to Australia. That we ignore that on a per capita basis that country is more efficient at minimising pollution. We're suppose to ignore that, and do nothing to fix our backyard.

But at the end of they day this boils do to a case of mind over matter. I don't mind (they're wrong) and they don't matter.

 

[juddles]

.... the science must be completely ignored .....

The history of Science is very predictable. At every stage of every paradigm, the majority of scientists thought they were right. When they were not.

My view - once all these climate scientists ¨solve¨ climate change, they can all move on to solving gravity.

 

[Pushka]

Why does everything have to be black and white? That is, if you are skeptical about (most of) the alarming claims made by the likes of Al Gore, then that automatically seems to put you on par with someone who doesn't want to reduce pollution and wants to leave the largest footprint on earth possible.

Just wondering if the definition of moronic is simply someone who doesn't agree with the same things you do.

 

[medhead]

Why does everything have to be black and white? That is, if you are skeptical about (most of) the alarming claims made by the likes of Al Gore, then that automatically seems to put you on par with someone who doesn't want to reduce pollution and wants to leave the largest footprint on earth possible.

Just wondering if the definition of moronic is simply someone who doesn't agree with the same things you do.

No the definition would need to add a little bit to your proposal.

1. skeptical about (most of) the alarming claims made by the likes of Al Gore
2. Concerned to reduce pollution
3. Argues strongly to not reduce pollution by jumping on the Al Gore attack bandwagon of shock jocks.

Fortunately I haven't bothered with Al Gore's little movie.

 

[medhead]

The history of Science is very predictable. At every stage of every paradigm, the majority of scientists thought they were right. When they were not.

My view - once all these climate scientists ¨solve¨ climate change, they can all move on to solving gravity.

Solve gravity? It's solved, extremely well understood. The science of gravity is settled. (Don't mention dark matter)

 

[amaroo]

Just wondering if the definition of moronic is simply someone who doesn't agree with the same things you do.

LOL we didn't need 476 posts to work that one out.

 

[drron]

Finally something that should have happened long ago is happening.The American Physical Society is reviewing their statement on AGW.They have been strong supporters of AGW.On this occasion they have put together a committee first to study the IPCC's AR5 report and come up with questions about perceived weaknesses in the report.
A subcommittee of 6-3 AGW supporters and 3 sceptics-will then consult widely to come up with a draft document outlining the science which will then be discussed by the members.

Just some of the questions they have come up with-

The temperature stasis
While the Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST) rose strongly from 1980-98, it has shown no significant rise for the past 15 years…[The APS notes that neither the 4[SUP]th[/SUP] nor 5[SUP]th[/SUP] IPCC report modeling suggested any stasis would occur, and then asks] …
To what would you attribute the stasis?
If non-anthropogenic influences are strong enough to counteract the expected effects of increased CO2, why wouldn’t they be strong enough to sometimes enhance warming trends, and in so doing lead to an over-estimate of CO2 influence?
What are the implications of this statis for confidence in the models and their projections?

A longer list can be found here-
Finally, Some Real Climate Science &mdash; Quadrant Online

The IPCC reports are consensus reports.not to be confused with "proven science".Albert Einstein on proven science-
No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.
Read more at No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong. - Albert Einstein at BrainyQuote