Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Author

OT: Skeptics vs Alarmist Cage Match unSpectacular!


SwineOfTheTimes

24-Nov-2009
11:31:28 PM

On 24/11/2009 evanbb wrote:

>
>I've read about 15 pages discussing their contents so far and haven't
>seen anything I'm worried about.
>
So the fact that "top" climate scientists (Hadley) for the IPCC conspired to manipulate data to hide evidence of global cooling while engaging in academic witch hunts to eliminate scientists skeptical of man-made climate change doesn't worry you? But I guess alarmists are not going to be effected by the scandal, because they will allow nothing whatsoever to corrupt their religious belief system.
>
>Here's RealClimate's analysis:

That's like going to the Vatican to ask if god exists!

>If you have some specific passages that you think indicate something serious is up I'd love to see them.

Mann discusses tactics for screening and delaying postings at Real Climate.

Mann tells Jones that it would be nice to ‘”contain” the putative Medieval Warm Period’.

Prior to AR3 Briffa talks of pressure to produce a tidy picture of “apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data”. Briffa says it was just as warm a thousand years ago.

Wigley discusses fixing an issue with sea surface temperatures in the context of making the results look both warmer but still plausible.

And the list goes on. The evidence keeps mounting that most climate research now being funded is for the purpose of supporting the IPCC’s politics, not to find out how nature works.

You may claim that a email is taken out of context, but when these "scientists" making notes in code does so that he/she can document what the code is actually doing at that stage, so that anyone who looks at it later can figure out why this function doesn’t plot past 1960. In this case, it is not allowing all of the temperature data to be plotted. Growing season data (summer months when the new tree rings are formed) past 1960 is thrown out because “these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures”, which implies some post processing routine.
Data that has been “artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures” is false data, yielding a false result.


evanbb

25-Nov-2009
6:10:43 AM

Excellent regurgitation of the party line, Swine. Like I said, I haven't seen anything I'm worried about.


ambyeok

25-Nov-2009
1:57:31 PM

Because one side has been exposed are we to assume that the others are all angels? People manipulate data for their own purpose and to suit their agenda... were we really that surpised? Better add to that list politicians, lawyers, crag developers, etc. etc. Everything has a b*llshit factor, you simply account for it, remove it, and proceed.

jono_1

27-Nov-2009
6:52:06 AM

Whatever Tony. No one is really listening to you guys and the ones up on the big hill are fast disappearing.

The world is moving forward - China has just announced plans to cut their emissions intentisy by 40-45% , NZ has passed their ETS, we are not far away, US is aiming for 17% by 2020 etc ,etc.

Wendy

27-Nov-2009
7:41:08 AM

On 27/11/2009 jono_1 wrote:

>The world is moving forward - China has just announced plans to cut their
>emissions intentisy by 40-45% , NZ has passed their ETS, we are not far
>away, US is aiming for 17% by 2020 etc ,etc.
>
>

I like the Chinese figures. Hope they actually get there. Our ETS looks like a lose-lose situation at the moment. There's loads of money being handed out, mostly to big polluters, and it's for a crappy small reduction. So it will be expensive and it will do bugger all. How sad can it all get ...
>
>
>
>


evanbb

27-Nov-2009
7:56:11 AM

I heard someone on the ABC last night talking about China. Among other things, he said 'there are no climate change sceptics in China'.
It's the Tony Haymet Interview here

Apparently they've been spreading the news that 'this is not just an American problem, it is a Chinese problem as well. We want to become a developed nation, but know that we do not want to do it the same way as has been done before'. Something like that anyway. The power of Communism.


nmonteith

27-Nov-2009
8:22:13 AM

Can anyone explain to me what an ETS is exactly and how its going to work? I've never seen a clear explanation - which is a bit alarming as I read (decent) newspapers everyday and follow politics with some degree of interest. If I am quite ignorant (which I am) then I really worry about what the average Today Tonight watcher knows....

widewetandslippery

27-Nov-2009
8:31:05 AM

What he said.

Also, will cutting emissions radically alter the enviroment in the next 20 years?


evanbb

27-Nov-2009
8:42:30 AM

Good stuff, my chance to show my credentials as a policy wonk.

To curb emissions within an economy there are basically 2 ways of doing it; a flat tax on emissions, where anyone who emits pays per tonne; or Cap and Trade, where the Government issues a number of certificates each year, each one representing an amount of CO2 (or equivalent). Then, there's an auction each year for the permits, to allow companies to pollute. The idea being that this finds the lowest cost way to reduce emissions.

The tax has problems because it doesn't set a maximum amount of emissions to be worked underneath. The tax just relies on the price signal associated with emissions to drive emissions down. Cap and Trade has a maximum number of emissions, governed by how many certificates are issued each year. In both cases the goal is to change consumer behaviour by putting a price on emissions. The ETS is based on a Cap and Trade system.

Economists love the Cap and Trade model because it allows the market better flexibility to find this so called 'lowest cost abatement'. In theory, you just throw open the system, and the smartest companies win.

The proposed system, the actual Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) is based on a Cap and Trade, but includes all sorts of sweeteners that distort the market ability to respond. The Government, whipped into submission by all sorts of modelling done by industry lobbyists has promised to give high emitters most (90-95%) of their credits for free. This is retarded. Further, the Govt has promised that no households are worse off under the scheme, so they get rebates on electricity and other things.

Also, the legislation actually is not designed to lower Australian emissions. Rather, they will use the sale of permits to offset our emissions in developing countries by protecting rainforest.

So the scheme will send no price signal to consumers, so they won't change their behaviour. There is no impact on emitters, because they get all their permits free.

Renewables only get assistance through the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target (MRET), which is a sliding scale up to 20% renewables by 2020. This mandates retailers purchase renewable power, even if it's more expensive. Garnaut and Stern are both opposed to the target, but with the distortions associated with the free permits, the Government realises it's necessary.

lacto

27-Nov-2009
8:54:21 AM

everything i have read is the proposed cuts will at the most slow warming but more importantly give the frame work to increase the rate of co2 cutting. the current proposal will se the victorian brown coal power stations continue with it becoming increasingly expensive to operate , with time better distribution , better demand management (smart meters etc ) as well as greener alternatives , wind, solar ,tidal , geothermal and gas will replace the reliance on brown coal . Currently there is in vic about 6000mw brown coal capacity with demand going from a minimum of 4500 to a normal 8000mw but on peak days going to 12000mw so coal is not really efficiently covering our needs as most effective at high unvaried loads. the ets will use cost to consumers of power to drive change over time at first on househlds but in time to industry as well.


evanbb

27-Nov-2009
8:57:43 AM

On 27/11/2009 widewetandslippery wrote:
>Also, will cutting emissions radically alter the enviroment in the next
>20 years?

Very unlikely. We're just acting too slowly. It is likely to get worse for 10-20 years though. And maybe get worse faster.

stingray4100

27-Nov-2009
9:24:00 AM

Evan, I have followed this thread with great interest and appreciate your insight into what is a very complex problem.

I find myself wanting to support the ETS (there needs to be some kind of government action to drive the necessary changes) but tend to agree with your assessment of it's effectiveness. Do you think that the current legislation is worth supporting despite it being flawed in many ways?


evanbb

27-Nov-2009
9:52:45 AM

On 27/11/2009 stingray4100 wrote:
>Do you think that the current legislation is worth supporting despite it being flawed in many ways?

This is a big question, and extroardinarily boring for a lot of people.

There are arguments on both sides of the coin. Firstly, with the current senate, I think this is the strongest legislation that can possibly get through. For legislation to pass it needs the support of Labor, plus either the 5 greens + the 2 independents (Fielding and Xenophon) OR 7 Liberals.

The Greens were being a bit silly with their higher targets (in a political sense), but probably would have negotiated a better deal. The problem with the Greens+2 deal is that Fielding has a thinking, understanding and voting disability and so would not have voted for any legislation that addresses climate change. He is a fukking idiot in the traditional sense of the word. So, for a more environmentally friendly scheme, a Liberal would have had to cross the floor and vote with the Greens; electoral suicide for those guys.

So, Labor had to move further right to try and get the Liberals on board. Again, they're severely fractured internally; torn between blue-ribbon Liberal demographics (inner city doctors) and Country Party right wing-red neck lunatics, who think climate change is an inner city conspiracy to defraud the bush. So, when negotiating with these lunatics they had to water down the scheme to appear to have no affect on the Liberal constituents that would be affected by this green conspiracy to de-industrialise Australia.

So in short, I think it's a terrible scheme, but the best we could hope for with the current right-tards in the senate. There's a decent chance there will be a change in the numbers in the senate at the next election, with either a straight Labor majority, or a chance for the Greens to have the controlling vote. Then, the details of the scheme could be manipulated and tightened to actually lower our emissions.

Personally, I'm filled with cynicism and doubt about this scheme. But, there is some scope for improvement.

prb

27-Nov-2009
10:30:34 AM

Nobody is happy with the CPRS and it won't do a lot to reduce the 1% or so we contribute to global
emissions, but the acceptance by the government that there is a problem and the attempt to pass a bill
are important steps. Let's hope the voting public supports more serious carbon reduction in the years to
come, but let's really hope the US and China get really serious!

widewetandslippery

27-Nov-2009
11:11:11 AM

On 27/11/2009 evanbb wrote:
>On 27/11/2009 widewetandslippery wrote:
>>Also, will cutting emissions radically alter the enviroment in the next
>>20 years?
>
>Very unlikely. We're just acting too slowly. It is likely to get worse
>for 10-20 years though. And maybe get worse faster.

Why worry then?


evanbb

27-Nov-2009
11:17:54 AM

On 27/11/2009 widewetandslippery wrote:
>Why worry then?

Gives us something to do.

If everyone was able to cut their emissions substantially and quickly we would avoid changing the climate any more. But that won't happen. I guess the point is to do something and build from there.


GravityHound

27-Nov-2009
11:36:46 AM

On 27/11/2009 widewetandslippery wrote:
>What he said.
>
>Also, will cutting emissions radically alter the enviroment in the next
>20 years?

depends on what you mean by environment. climate? ocean acidity and subsequent effects on marine ecology (and our food)? quality of food grown by farmers?

I don't think it is a case of radically altering the environment if we cut emissions, but radically altering the environment if we dont.

Wendy

30-Nov-2009
7:38:23 AM

Did anyone see Can We Make a Star on Earth on SBS last night? A very Brit Pop looking professor wanders around the world checking out the latest efforts at nuclear fusion. Everyone in the show is very excited about fusion but noone's actually sure they'll be able to ever provide commercial power out of it. One guy said they should know if it is even possible in the next few years, another said they could do it by 2022 if they were given enough money, others were up to 2050 to have something that could produce continual power.

Twas all kind of interesting, but I still wouldn't hold out hope for it.


evanbb

30-Nov-2009
7:56:09 AM

On 30/11/2009 Wendy wrote:
>Did anyone see Can We Make a Star on Earth on SBS last night? A very Brit
>Pop looking professor wanders around the world checking out the latest
>efforts at nuclear fusion. Everyone in the show is very excited about fusion
>but noone's actually sure they'll be able to ever provide commercial power
>out of it. One guy said they should know if it is even possible in the
>next few years, another said they could do it by 2022 if they were given
>enough money, others were up to 2050 to have something that could produce
>continual power.
>
>Twas all kind of interesting, but I still wouldn't hold out hope for it.

He did my head in so much I had to turn it off. There's not much worse than earnest nerds, grinning like lunatics because science is just the coolest thing going around.

Wendy

30-Nov-2009
8:10:32 AM

On 30/11/2009 evanbb wrote:

>
>He did my head in so much I had to turn it off. There's not much worse
>than earnest nerds, grinning like lunatics because science is just the
>coolest thing going around.

I was wondering if he was a strategy to recruit young british girls to the cause.

There are 818 messages in this topic.