Global Warming or Goverment/Oil Company Con

[johnpwalsh]

Here guys I was sitting in my little box the other week in the middle of the Caspian Sea and started deliberating the problems with Global Warming and the receding water levels worldwide. Strange what you do when sitting in a tin box miles offshore. Well the train of thought went something like this.

 Governments worldwide are charging a fortune in tax on fuels and saying we are burning up fat to much fossil fuels which in turn creates global warming, again which is causing, or so they say the melting of the ice cap which in turn you would think would increase water levels worldwide. Well think on it this way. drilling companies drill lots of big long holes in the seabed to secure our fuels then they have this super-duper idea if pumping water back into the holes to increase the pressure in the wells and help force the fossil fuels to the surface where we as mere humans burn it up in our cars, planes, central heating and lots of part time pursuits in the name of fun. So me sitting in my little tin box got to thinking, is it a con, do we actually cause that big a problem, after all if we melt the ice cap the water level has to rise yes. If it caused by our gasses escaping to the atmosphere and burning it off then as far as I know moisture evaporates to the atmosphere then comes back again as rain, snow etc so common sense says that the levels should stay roughly the same, no. Well what if it is a con by various world powers to hide the fact that the millions of gallons they are pumping back into the underground caverns vacated by the said fossil fuels is the actual cause of the disappearing water levels and the said various governments just don't want the oil companies to stop as they would lose far to much revenue in lost taxes etc, a huge rise in unemployment, and no one to blame the problem on.

Strange what crap you think about when sitting in a little steel box in the middle of the sea. Anyone got a straight jacket.

 

 

[ramjet]

Glad to oblige

 

[redshift]

 is it a con

 

Yes.

 

I am totally uninspired by the way that the data has been manipulated and inappropriate statistical analysis has been applied in order to support a hypothesis that has failed to be validated by any of the models.

 

Overcoming this nonsense will take time for 3 reasons:

 

1) Too many subsides and grants to 'prove' its real. aka too many snouts in the trough.

 

2) Governments have found the 'ideal' tax method. People are less likely to complain about the tax imposed if you can make them feel guilty about it. "Its for you own good".

 

3) The subject has become akin to religion and the fanaticism of believers knows no limits.

 

I have posted on a few science sites where I thought there was application of true scientific method. However, I once posted some research documents that brought into question the calibration of some of the satellite based measuring equipment. I was banned and all my posts disappeared.

[Kimbers]

Totally with you Pete. I read an article (which I will try and find and post here) saying there are over 2 million "specialists, scientists and advisors" employed in the "Climate Change Industry". There is a specialst department also in every government/country so those numbers get added to the figure. That's not to mention all the green taxes the govt rely on for income!

 

The week before the most recent report came out, which myself and many cynics thought was just a "We're still here" report, one came out with over 60 eminent scientists stating that the figures didn't show what the climate experts were saying. It didn't get ANY press and it wouldn't surprise me if it was supressed on purpose to suit certain people.

[slewthy]

Global Warming '95% Certain', Say Scientists

Um, well, thats not as sure as I had thought before.

Its only just statistically significant.

Wonder how they reached the 95% figure?

[ramjet]

.....However, I once posted some research documents that brought into question the calibration of some of the satellite based measuring equipment. I was banned and all my posts disappeared.

Nothing like censorship to quell a differing opinion. If you all were doing was querying, why get banned? So much for free speech and free thinking.

 

Essentially, our earth and it's atmosphere is a balanced system. As much energy as comes in, goes out. Sunlight heats our atmosphere, but our atmosphere also loses energy to space to remain at an equilibrium. The planet regulates itself by being in space. If the heat is increased in our atmosphere by us, under Boyles Law that would increase the volume of our atmosphere, and the atmospheres' surface area to space and therefore the heat loss.

A tax on carbon is silly. You may as well tax someone for mining on the equator and putting the tailings in a region off the equator and calling it 'Orbit Change Tax'.

The only 'matter' that we have lost from our 'system' is the stuff we have sent into space which will never come back. So, unless I'm mistaken, that would be the the Voyager spacecraft and 2 mars rovers. Maybe we should charge the government 'Matter Relocation Tax'?

The rest of the space junk will eventually find its way back into the atmosphere and then becomes part of the system again.

 

I was reading an article in our local newspaper today. It was by a journalist taking a swing at a politician. Not unusual, you say, but he was having a crack at a Greens senator.

 

I've posted the entire article below so anyone that is interested can read it for themselves.

 

FLAP, flap, flap. See the global warming vultures over the NSW fires, searching for a feed.

The biggest is deputy Greens leader Adam Bandt, who at the height of the fires urged us to read his latest green sermon.

Showing a picture of smoke over Sydney and linking to his article in the far-Left Guardian, he tweeted: "Why Tony Abbott's plan means more bushfires for Australia and more pics like this of Sydney."

Click his link and you find Bandt claiming that "by repealing the carbon tax, Tony Abbott is failing to protect his people".

Worse, even. Bandt claims Abbott, the volunteer firefighter, is actually starting the fires: "Donning a volunteer firefighter uniform for the media is a con if you're also helping start fires that put people's lives in danger." Says Bandt, who never fought a fire in his life.

Sure, Bandt is not the only vulture.

Tim Flannery's Climate Council also claimed global warming was bringing "the sorts of weather conditions that increase the risk of fire", and Sydney Morning Herald columnist Peter FitzSimons jeered: "And who should be repenting, Prime Minister?"

Some critics mistakenly think the worst of this politicking is the timing - and, true, even Bandt once claimed he was against it.

Three years ago I said Prime Minister Julia Gillard had blood on her hands after some 50 boat people drowned off Christmas Island.

As I argued, Gillard had rewritten our border laws to make them much softer, and had dismissed earlier reports I'd cited showing dozens of boat people had already been lured to their deaths at sea.

Bandt was livid: "I think that, using this opportunity to say the Prime Minister has blood on her hands, I think that that's just outrageous.

"I saw a similar thing happen here in response to the bushfires that we had (in Victoria), there were people who would jump in and say it was all the fault of not having enough burning off ...

"I don't think that trying to turn a tragedy so quickly into some kind of perceived political advantage is how we want to be characterised as a nation, and I think those comments are outrageous."

Now who's being "outrageous"? What a hypocrite. Still, I'd excuse Bandt if he was right - if Abbott's global warming policies really did leave us more vulnerable. Trouble is, Bandt is completely wrong.

Ironically, the higher fire risk in NSW this year is due mainly to the very thing the Greens once told us not to expect from global warming.

For years these alarmists claimed warming had dried up the rains. In 2006 Greens leader Bob Brown warned southern Australia faced "the spectre of permanent drought".

Instead, NSW over the past three years has had two years of massive rain, followed by one of above-average falls. Brown fields turned lush green and top bushfire experts grew alarmed.

The NSW Rural Fire Service last year warned, "Widespread rain in the past two years has led to grass growth not seen in more than 30 years", and as it dried, NSW faced a greater risk of "large and fast-moving fires".

The Australasian Fire and Emergency Service Authorities Council recently repeated the warning: "Above-average rainfall for much of the preceding three years is likely to continue the trend of heavy grass fuel loads throughout the grassland areas of NSW."

Add some hot weather and a big fire was bound to go off - just as NSW saw in 1957, 1976 , 1991 and 2001, when years of fire also followed years of rain.

Nor is there is anything unusual about the size of last week's fires, which burned 100,000 hectares.

NSW suffered far worse in 1968, when 14 people died in fires that burned more than a million hectares. Another 1.5 million hectares were burned as fires raged for 151 days from 27 September 2002.

Nothing in the records shows ­global warming has made bushfires bigger or deadlier in NSW - or ­globally. The US is recording its quietest fire season a decade.

The most telling point against Bandt's alarmism, of course, is that global temperatures have barely changed for 15 years. Indeed, Canberra last week recorded its coldest October night in history. Like Sydney's hot spell, it's called weather, Adam, not climate change.

So Bandt is wrong about the cause of the fire and wrong to pretend these fires are worse. He's wrong to imply global temperatures have been steadily rising, and wrong to claim Abbott could make the slightest difference.

Just ask Professor Roger Jones, an author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, which estimates that even if Abbott kept Labor's carbon tax policies, Australia would at best cut temperatures by an imperceptible 0.0038 degrees by 2100.

So Bandt is wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong. And a hypocrite as well as a vulture. Oh, and a disgrace.

[redshift]

Global Warming '95% Certain', Say Scientists

 

 

Nope.

 

If you read the agreed text from the 'scientists' in the IPCC "summary for policymakers" you will find the comment:

“Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10-15 years” (Section D-1, Draft SPM-10).

 

However, the final published copy that has to be passed by the likes of Greenpeace (please check who attend the IPCC final plenary....) Unsurprisingly that summary from the scientists was deleted by the activists.

[ramjet]

Does anyone recall all the hype about Y2K?

 

Planes were going to crash, traffic systems were going to fail, etc etc. All man made and nothing happened. If I recall correctly, the US justice dept called for an enquiry into all the Y2K proponents and burgeoning IT businesses and consultants for perpetrating a huge con.

 

What makes us think we understand a planetary system the size and complexity of ours any better?

[Kimbers]

Forbes earlier this year. I found this very interesting but isn't it weird how this wasn't front page news and on the BBC news for a week!

 

It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

Move up http://i.forbesimg.com t Move down

 

The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.

According to the newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36 percent of respondents fit the “Comply with Kyoto” model. The scientists in this group “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”

The authors of the survey report, however, note that the overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is skeptical of alarmist global warming claims.

The survey finds that 24 percent of the scientist respondents fit the “Nature Is Overwhelming” model. “In their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth.” Moreover, “they strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal lives.”

Another group of scientists fit the “Fatalists” model. These scientists, comprising 17 percent of the respondents, “diagnose climate change as both human- and naturally caused. ‘Fatalists’ consider climate change to be a smaller public risk with little impact on their personal life. They are skeptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC modeling.” These scientists are likely to ask, “How can anyone take action if research is biased?”

The next largest group of scientists, comprising 10 percent of respondents, fit the “Economic Responsibility” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being natural or human caused. More than any other group, they underscore that the ‘real’ cause of climate change is unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable. Similar to the ‘nature is overwhelming’ adherents, they disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal life. They are also less likely to believe that the scientific debate is settled and that the IPCC modeling is accurate. In their prognostic framing, they point to the harm the Kyoto Protocol and all regulation will do to the economy.”

The final group of scientists, comprising 5 percent of the respondents, fit the “Regulation Activists” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life.” Moreover, “They are also skeptical with regard to the scientific debate being settled and are the most indecisive whether IPCC modeling is accurate.”

Taken together, these four skeptical groups numerically blow away the 36 percent of scientists who believe global warming is human caused and a serious concern.

One interesting aspect of this new survey is the unmistakably alarmist bent of the survey takers. They frequently use terms such as “denier” to describe scientists who are skeptical of an asserted global warming crisis, and they refer to skeptical scientists as “speaking against climate science” rather than “speaking against asserted climate projections.” Accordingly, alarmists will have a hard time arguing the survey is biased or somehow connected to the ‘vast right-wing climate denial machine.’

Another interesting aspect of this new survey is that it reports on the beliefs of scientists themselves rather than bureaucrats who often publish alarmist statements without polling their member scientists. We now have meteorologists, geoscientists and engineers all reporting that they are skeptics of an asserted global warming crisis, yet the bureaucrats of these organizations frequently suck up to the media and suck up to government grant providers by trying to tell us the opposite of what their scientist members actually believe.

People who look behind the self-serving statements by global warming alarmists about an alleged “consensus” have always known that no such alarmist consensus exists among scientists. Now that we have access to hard surveys of scientists themselves, it is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

[Loose Cannon]

I believe it was pushed years ago by the Thatcher government to get us to accept more nuclear power, the likes that people were campaigning against. However it seems to have gained heart, lungs and momentum of it's own.

 

Interesting the gov now tend to refer to nuclear as "low carbon power"

[Sparky]

Al Gore.  Find him and kill him.

[comem47]

My feeling on global warming is the stuff we are contributing is much smaller noise on the huge sine wave that is the earth itself. Long before there was man there were cooling (ice age) and tropical jungle cycles.  Don't know whether the cause be by volcanic ,meteoric, methane release sources or whatever, but we are a blip by comparison.  (and these are cycles, not just the newly created  earth cooling down or heating up once. it has happened many , many times)

Edited October 21, 2013 by comem47

[basalte]

OH NOO...the great "global warming" debate. Exceptionally with this thread,  I do tend to agree with the guy who crops up to tell us to stop discussing anything other than Lotuses. Personally I would rather Gorily rip my knees off with a boathook than get involved in the scientific, quasi - scientific, pseudo - scientific and non - scientific detail of this particular debate that rumbles on and on through every public forum like a big grey, turgid MidWest Tornado.

 

As I don`t have kids, I am not that worried about theirs or the world`s future that much.

 

I would point out that there are climate-change deniers who are in the pay of the oil industry BUT-I am also sceptical of all the scientists who quite recently  assured us that we were headed into a new Ice Age ! Just what detailed analysis / database where they using ?

 

Many pro and antis will know this but it is important to restate that  Global Warming causes localised disruptive weather patterns that paradoxically can lead to extremes of cold and rain. But the overall pattern is one of warming. My only fear is that whether or not it is man made, we are not exactly helping the process.

 

Of course we could have nailed it with fusion power/hydrogen propulsion / recycling your own phlegm  etc but if a bloody great volcano kicks off like the one under Yellowstone (?)  Park we are all back to square one !  

[johnpwalsh]

And to think all of the above started off by my babblings after sitting in a steel box (crane cab) in the middle of the Caspian Sea, well just to add a little light hearted few words. The day before I came back to the UK I was walking over the bridge in the middle of the city, that's Atyrau to those who don't know the country. Now at either end of the bridge there is a big steel Gazebo, on one side of the river it states you are in Europe, cross the bridge to the other side it states you are in Asia so my question has to be. When I was standing legs apart on the middle line of the bridge and farted, Which continent has to pay for my gas/carbon burn out. Asia or Europe.

[Mysterae]

John, the answer would be both, 50/50, unless the dividing line (that no one "owns") is as wide as the cloud from your air-biscuit, then the answer would be neither .

 

The best description I was given about the climate change debate was, "it's a bit cloudy, with a chance of bollocks". Good title for a movie that . 

[johnpwalsh]

The best one was when I told my wife I was standing on the middle line and that every time I crossed over the time on my watch would change by an hour, the sad bit was she and a few others believed me.

[softlips]

When I was a kid at school they wheeled the big TV in one more printing and we all had the watch an Hoizon programme explaining how scientists had discovered the Earth was cooling down due to the fossil fuels being burnt!,

Every other year the science changes.

[MikieP]

We are losing glaciers and other long frozen areas of this planet such as the North West passage is now open and they are drilling in areas previously covered in ice sheets - ask the folks finding long encapsulated items in the now melted areas _Archeologists in Norway et al_ and, although it seems our fresh water stays around 1% of all water here on, there does seem to be a trending upwards of a few tidal levels and hotter water temps in various places driving the fish further north and imparting more energy into the lower atmosphere. Causation is relative and not certain, but there does seem to be a concensus that there could be a tipping point somewhere. Ice cores show reversals in both directions over the time measured and some of them do indicate severe cold (some of which are certainly attributed to massive volcanic plume dispersals) as well as severe heat (mostly unexplained). Some folks and governments are counting on science finding solutions before things go to Hell, heat wise, and I am trusting this will occur, but i do imagine it will not be cheap.

 

As said above, if Yellowstone decides it is time, all this is moot. If you can still breathe afterwards you will be very cold, probably for a long time. For the really concerned, our Sun is slowly dying (burning itself out) and when it reaches a certain point something like 5 billion years hence, it will expand enough to roast our ball into gas anyway. One of our Presidents stated that trees are the cause...  they really do give off Carbon Dioxide part of the time as well as oxygen at other times, cows fart a lot, and huge subterranean methane pockets undersea and in lakes gets released - it all counts and adds up towards the tipping point.

 

I am concerned more about my Esprit being drivable again before my legs are no longer able to move the clutch pedal. After 19 months waiting for Jamie Goffaux of Yesteryear Motors to complete the work, all bits and pieces as basically nothing had been completed, removed to Treasured Motors in Baltimore with hope and a prayer. Cheers.

[johnpwalsh]

Hi Tony, wrong side of the pond for me to help out with your car but been there and done that bit then went and rebuilt it myself, it's taken just over a year learned a lot and made loads of contacts via TLF which I would have been stuck without. Even Bibs managed to convince me that the annual fee for full membership was more than worth it. Like you my concern is now getting her on the road for a first drive just when everybody is getting there inside for the winter, fingers crossed the snow stays away for another week and I will make it.

[Vanya]

My 2 cents:

 

I find the whole "Global Warming Debate" is misguided and poorly focused - too much time and energy is spent on targeting a projected verdict whereby man is the chief culprit and can therefore be taxed to kingdom come in due course, with little effective means employed to curb climate trouble and all associated problems.

 

In other words, the debate is constantly drawn into a political typhoon of sorts where rational thought and reason fall by the wayside missing the point entirely (point presented below..)

 

Furthermore, as we see in posted news above, many natural disasters such as bushfires and air pollution not necessarily directly linked to actual "warming" on a global scale, become part of the argument. So apart from politicizing the whole phenomenon needlessly, we mix in apples with the oranges and end up with a completely unintelligible tangle of challenges with no course of action or discernible approach.

 

Wouldn't effort be better spent by focusing on the things that directly affect us and which we KNOW we in turn can affect - i.e. certain bushfires, smog, other pollutants? The earth MAY or MAY NOT be warming up, but until the bureaucrats and eggheads have reached a consensus, probably by anno 2256, we will have killed ourselves with filthy air and other contaminants (poorly maintained nuclear power stations too perhaps?). If we for instance take the city of Beijing before and during the 2008 Olympic Games - pictures were taken of the cityscape in the weeks prior to the games with visibility reduced to tens of meters due to thick smog thanks to burning fossil fuels. During the games when car use was "rationed" smog reduced considerably and there was a huge rise in air quality. These things are very obviously proven, and we can, with a bit of effort, affect them. Why not focus on that instead?

 

Lastly, just want to point out that I'm not a tree hugger, and while I am considerate about my day-to-day driving, I refuse to apologize for owning and running a sports vehicle during any of the 150-200 miles a year that I drive it. Because that ain't even a drop in the ocean.

[redshift]

We are losing glaciers and other long frozen areas of this planet such as the North West passage is now open

 

http://www.sail-world.com/USA/North-West-Passage-blocked-with-ice%E2%80%94yachts-caught/113788

 

Safer to say that the passage 'was' open. Canadian Coastguards would definitely advise against trying it now.

 

The advancement of science is by open discussion, critique, continual assessment and willingness to redefine or refine the original hypothesis beyond reasonable doubt. Scientific "methodology" has for centuries consisted of:

 

- Here is my hypothesis

- Here is my data

- Here are my calculations

- Here are the experimental results or models

- Here is the validation of the model

Please prove me wrong.

 

I have been involved in research since the mid 70s and never, ever has any scientist or scientific group come along with a new hypothesis and said:

- The science is settled (no we are not going to even discuss it)

- No you cant see the data

- Here are the experimental models

If you want to prove me wrong we'll call you a holocaust denier.

 

Not surprisingly myself and many others detected odours of deceased rat.

[Kimbers]

http://www.sail-world.com/USA/North-West-Passage-blocked-with-ice%E2%80%94yachts-caught/113788

 

Safer to say that the passage 'was' open. Canadian Coastguards would definitely advise against trying it now.

 

 

Indeed, in fact, the last 3 years have seen more artic Ice than in the previous 10 years.

 

the trouble is that by the time the scientists have "studied" the information it's years out of date!

 

This from the NSIDC

 

Contrasting weather conditions were a significant factor in this year’s higher sea ice extent and lower Greenland Ice Sheet melt intensity, compared to last year. This summer saw air temperatures at the 925 hPa level that were 1 to 3 degrees Celsius (2 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit) lower than last summer. It was also a cool summer compared to recent years over much of the Arctic Ocean, and even cooler than the 1981 to 2010 average in some regions, particularly north of Greenland.

While 2012 and 2013 extents were similar through May, weather patterns from June to August helped retain more ice. Last summer was marked by lower than average pressure over the Eurasian side of the Arctic and higher than average pressure over Greenland. This resulted in a dipole-like wind pattern that favored ice transport across the ocean and the import of heat from southern latitudes along the Eurasian side of the Arctic. In contrast, this summer was characterized by unusually low pressure over much of the Arctic Ocean, which limited heat import from the south and brought more extensive cloud cover, keeping temperatures lower. In addition, the winds associated with the low pressure caused the ice cover to spread out and cover a larger area.

Over land, the cool spring resulted in greater than average March and April snow cover for the Northern Hemisphere. However, as in recent years, the snow melted rapidly, and by May, snow cover was at near record lows. Cooler weather conditions also limited surface melt on the Greenland Ice Sheet, which was still greater than the 1981 to 2010 average, but not near the record set in 2012 (see our Greenland Ice Sheet Today post for more details).

[arbell9]

The thing I don't like is the fact that temperature recordings go back as far as 1880, so anything before has been calculated based on theoretical models. There is no way of actually knowing what the various temperatures were around the world before 1880, but it seems to me that the methods of paleoclimatology are accepted as fact. In truth they are just derived estimates. Some methods such as pollen count and tree ring growth just use the generalised observation that there is more pollen in favourable times which tend be when the climate is good ( vague orwhat??). Ice cores and sea analysis use ratios of O16 to O18 to define warmer or colder periods, then cannot in my view accurately reflect true temperature readings. There is uncertainty in the various methods.

 

This is uncertainty is almost always dismissed by the pro-climate change lobby. Equally this uncertainty is over-hyped by sceptics of  man-made climate change theory .

 

Here is a paper describing the problem of uncertainty http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Jones.pdf from 2000.

 

This is just an example, there are differing views in the Stats world on how best to analyse real, empirical and model data and how to correctly account for the uncertainty, and more worryingly how to communicate this level of uncertainty to the wider public.

 

This paper is a brilliant illustration of just how confusing the whole shebang has become: I highlight the repetitive warnings on uncertainty. The last comment is priceless, at best the state we should HEDGE our decision making.

 

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_other/rmrs_2011_littell_j001.pdf

 

Abstract. The impacts of climate change on forest ecosystems are likely to require changes in forest

planning and natural resource management. Changes in tree growth, disturbance extent and intensity, and

eventually species distributions are expected. In natural resource management and planning, ecosystem

models are typically used to provide a ‘‘best estimate’’ about how forests might work in the future and thus

guide decision-making. Ecosystem models can be used to develop forest management strategies that

anticipate these changes, but limited experience with models and model output is a challenge for managers

in thinking about how to address potential effects of climate change. What do decision makers need to

know about climate models, ecological models used for impacts assessments, and the uncertainty in model projections in order to use model output in strategies for adaptation to climate change? We present

approaches for understanding and reducing the uncertainty associated with modeling the effects of climate

change on ecosystems, focusing on multi-model approaches to clarify the strengths and limits of

projections and minimize vulnerability to undesirable consequences of climate change. Scientific

uncertainties about changes in climate or projections of their impacts on resources do not present

fundamental barriers to management and adaptation to climate change. Instead, many of these

uncertainties can be controlled by characterizing their effects on models and future projections from

those models. There is uncertainty in decision making that does not derive just from the complex

interaction of climate and ecosystem models, but in how modeling is integrated with other aspects of the

decision environment such as choice of objectives, monitoring, and approach to assessment. Adaptive

management provides a hedge against uncertainty, such that climate and ecosystem models can inform decision making.

 

They give the example how to handle 18 Global Climate Models

 

 

18 different models all with there own strengths and weakness. The problem as I see is the propagation of real uncertainty and the ignorance around what this means.

 

Politicians just seem to ignore what they don't like in Climate Change research and just go with what fits what they would like.  Its no wonder that Joe Public ends up paying the price in $ or £ etc for weak policy making.

 

I tend to agree that we are influencing the climate somehow and somewhere, but the evidence for the impending apocaplyse by 2025, 2035, 20XX (insert favourite number here) just isn't tractable to make decisions on. We don't even know if the outcome would be beneficial for the earth in the long run.

 

Probably written too much for most, but At least I think you get the point.

 

Uncertainty ignored or misunderstood leads to crap policy ----> leads to pain for the likes of you and me.

 

[Kimbers]

You Sir, are far too intelligent!  Glad you put that last line in cause I was totally all at sea half way through your post

[PilotSteve]

Ian Rutherford Plimer is an Australian geologist, professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne, professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide, and the director of multiple mineral exploration and mining companies. He has published 130 scientific papers, six books and edited the Encyclopedia of Geology.

These are his extensive credentials.

Born

12 February 1946 (age 67)

Residence

Australia

Nationality

Australian

Fields

Earth Science, Geology, Mining Engineering

Institutions

University of New England,University of Newcastle,University of Melbourne,University of Adelaide

Alma mater

University of New South Wales,Macquarie University

Thesis

The pipe deposits of tungsten-molybdenum-bismuth in eastern Australia (1976)

Notable awards

Eureka Prize (1995, 2002),Centenary Medal (2003), Clarke Medal (2004)

Where Does the Carbon Dioxide Really Come From?

Professor Ian Plimer's book in a brief summary.

PLIMER: "Okay, here's the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland . Since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet - all of you.

Of course, you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress - it’s that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans and all animal life.

I know....it's very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kids "The Green Revolution" science project, throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of abroad,nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your 50 cent light bulbs with $10.00 light bulbs.....well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days.

The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth's atmosphere in just four days - yes, FOUR DAYS - by that volcano in Iceland has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one time - EVERY DAY.

I don't really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth.

Yes, folks, Mt Pinatubo was active for over

One year - think about it.

Of course, I shouldn't spoil this 'touchy-feely tree-hugging' moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which

keeps happening despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.

And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud, but the fact of the matter is that the bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year.

Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping carbon tax on you, on the basis of the bogus 'human-caused' climate-change scenario.

Hey, isn’t it interesting how they don’t mention 'Global Warming' anymore, but just 'Climate Change' - you know why?

It’s because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past century and these global warming bullshit artists got caught with their pants down.

And, just keep in mind that you might yet have an Emissions Trading Scheme - that whopping new tax - imposed on you that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer.

It won’t stop any volcanoes from erupting, that’s for sure.

But, hey, .....go give the world a hug and have a nice day.