Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 14:24:35 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

* Clear, unequivocal evidence that the planet is warming at a faster
rate at any time in the last 600,000 years.

Ahem...
http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/All_Comp.png

**Er, 1978 ~ 2010 is not 600,000 years. Not even close. However, this graph
may provide a little more information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg

Not quite 600,000 years, but considerably more than 30. Here's some more
information:

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Pre...ning/New_Data/

And:

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Pre...ook/index.html

from:
http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.html

* Clear, unequivocal evidence that the planet is experiencing a rate
of CO2 rise that is faster than at any time in the last 600,000
years.

Ahem...
http://www.junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/UAHMSUglobe.html

**Again, a 30 year trend merely backs my claim.


* Clear, unequivocal evidence that the rate of temperature rise has
been closely linked to CO2 rise in the past.

Yep. Track volcanoes.
http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/scale2.html
http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/scale1.html

**What are you trying to say? That the temerature of the planet is rising?
That CO2 levels are rising? No argument from me.


Ok, I'll be the first to mention that Steven Milloy may have taken
money from Exxon (indirectly), but it has never been proven. Decide
for yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Milloy

**The data presented shows:

* That CO2 levels are rising.
* That average temperatures are trending upwards.

I have no issue with that data.


Since you're so sure that AGW is a proven thing, maybe you can collect
the $500,000 from Milloy? Send a few dollars my way if you succeed:
http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com

**I am satisfied that AGW has been shown to be the most likey explanation
for the temperature rise that has been noted, with around 95% confidence.
That is not 100% confidence and would likely not qualify for the money. It
is likely that, by the time 100% confidence has been reached, several things
will have occured:

* Milloy will be dead.
* VERY serious problems associated with global warming will be occuring and
the planet will have descended into a state of anarchy. US Dollars will
likely be virtually worthless. Food will be only currency of value.


* Clear, unequivocal evidence that Solar variability fails to
account for the temperature rise over the last 200 years.

Maybe. The problem is that none of the satellites are able to measure
planetary albedo with sufficient accuracy to make a definitive
determination.

**Which is why measuring the rate of heat retention by the oceans is so
important:

http://www.bom.gov.au/inside/eiab/St...10-updated.pdf

Examine the graph on page 4. The planet's oceans store vastly more heat than
the troposphere does. The oceans are warming.

We can do almost nothing in the way of measuring
albedo from the ground. The plan is for the satellite to measure how
much energy is reflected by the planet (which includes atmospheric,
ocean, ice, land, etc) and also solar output. The energy difference
is presumed to be what the planet absorbs. Note that all the energy
is not necessarily at IR (heating). Apparently it's sufficiently
important that NASA burned $424 million on the failed Glory launch,
and other global warming related birds. The current assumption that
solar variations do not account for the alleged rise in average
temperatures is based on computer models with some rather serious
potential errors.

**Really? Which errors? We know that the Sun output has diminished
(slightly) over the past couple of decades and yet the temperature trend of
the Earth is still up.


There's also a rather odd problem of just what the satellites are
actually measuring. Temperature varies with altitude. Satellite IR
imagers measure through all the various layers of the atmosphere. If
there are clouds covering a land mass, the IR imager gets the
temperature of the clouds, not the ground. So, to prevent this
obvious anomaly, the computers are set to only read numbers where
there are no clouds. However, that discounts the effects of aerosols
and particulates (i.e. dust) in the upper atmosphere, which does a
marvelous job of reflecting sunlight into the IR imager. Volcanoes
make it really difficult to get accurate readings. Plenty of other
complications requiring the usual tweaks, adjustments, compensations,
normalization, and cherry picking. Oh well.

**Which is why ocean temperature measurements are so important. It is the
planet's oceans that contain the most heat. By a considerable margin.


What Malloy has done with the "global thermometer" mentioned above is
to take as much of the METAR and NOAA temperature data as possible and
average all of it. The theory is that if you're faced with a large
number of potentially erroneous data points, and don't have the means
to reduce the errors, averaging all the bad data together will somehow
result in good data. That's because the errors will tend to be in
random directions and hopefully cancel. Since the IPCC uses the same
method, one can presume it to be valid. However, I have my doubts.

Anyway, I have not attempted to debunk anything that you've offered.
What I've done it attempt to undermine your apparently unshakable
certainty in AGW and the IPCC. If I've set you on the path of
critical thinking and academic skepticism, then I haven't wasted my
time.

**I do not have an "unshakable certainty in AGW and the IPCC". I accept that
the 95% certainty of AGW is a reasonable figure. What I find irrational is
the fact that many people seem to be clinging to the 5% uncertainty and
hoping that a very large number of very smart scientists are wrong.

Fundamentally, the way I see it is like this:

* If we spend a few Bucks today to mitigate CO2 emissions, we may be able to
avert the 95% probability of disaster.
* If we don't spend the money today, then it is highly probable (95%
certainty) that the cost will escalate with each passing year, to a point
where we will be unable to fund mitigation.
* If the scientists are wrong and we spend a few Bucks now, then it's cost
us some money.
* If the scientists are right and we don't spend the money, our civilisation
will not likely survive.

Make no mistake: I did not say that humans will be wiped out. Many will
survive. Anarchy is loking like a real probability.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

kreed wrote:
On Sep 28, 2:42 pm, "Trevor Wilson" wrote:
kreed wrote:
On Sep 28, 12:44 pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 19:28:58 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation
It doesn't explain everything, but is a substantial part of the
puzzle.
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/brightness.shtml

NASA's Glory satellite was suppose to measure all this more
accurately as the exact effect of variations in solar output isn't
totally clear. However, the satellite failed to reach orbit.
http://glory.gsfc.nasa.gov/misison_details.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glory_(satellite)

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #Dhttp://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Also noted a news article a couple of weeks back where a NASA
scientist came out on record speaking of concerns that aliens might
attack us if we don't do something about man made global warming .

They must be getting so desparate - like a cornered rat - to trot
this rubbish out.

IIRC there were reports of "global warming" on mars also, no wonder
those martians want to come and kill us !

**Substituting lies and complete bull**** for a rational argument
does not enhance your case (such as it is). You need to respond to
my many questions and comments, rather that veering into
fantasy-land.


I'm glad that you admitted that the fear of aliens attacking over
climate change is bull**** rather than rational argument, and proving
my point that NASA or at least the NASA scientist who made this
crackpot statement is speaking "lies, complete bull**** and veering
into fantasy-land"

Im glad we are in agreement on SOMETHING, Whew !!

**We agree on nothing. YOU made the claim about an alleged NASA scientist
making an absurd statement. YOU need to sunstantiate the claim. As usual,
you will fail in this action.




Hanging onto Jeff's coattails is not a reasonable response. Jeff has
presented a cogent, rational argument, that deserves a reasoned
response. He will receive one.


No, he gets a "reasoned response", as you fear that he would hang you
out to dry, and "pull your nappy down in front of the entire school,

**Unlike you, Jeff has placed some reased arguments, backed by some cites.
You present nothing to support your wild claims. BIG difference.


putting your excrement on pubicl display" metaphorically speaking -
if you started abusing him,

**********. I have NEVER abused Jeff. Abuse follows those who act like
dickheads. You have consistently failed to act reasonably and rationally.
You have failed to back your claims with any evidence.

so you are sucking up to him, and gently
trying to sucker him into your fantasy, or at least get him to give
you some credit to your nonsense to try and look clever or learned to
the rest of the group (who know what you are really like over years of
experience) to try and get their approval so the newer members will
think you to be some genius and beacon of wisdom and knowledge and try
and pull them onto your team to use them against the others.

**********. I cite facts and data. You cite absolutely nothing. Jeff has
backed his arguments with cites. You do not. Comparing yourself to Jeff is
extremely insulting to Jeff.


You also think he is undecided on the subject and can be nudged in
your direction, so you handle with care.

**********. I don't know what Jeff's position is. I don't much care. The
truth is the truth. Facts are facts. Your complete bull**** is just that:
Complete bull****. Not once have you presented any facts, or cites to back
your claims. Not once. Jeff presented cites to back his claims.

You know that I and some
others already have studied the matter,and those behind it,

**Liar. You have not read the IPCC AR4. You have, therefore, failed to study
the topic. AR4 is the premier document on the topic.

and have
made up their own minds and will not entertain your rubbish, so there
is no point in being nice to us, as it won't change anything, so you
just try and be nasty, abusive etc to impress the others.

**Not at all. I politely asked you to present data and facts to support your
claims and you failed miserably. Your continued failure to present any data
ensures that you deserve the contempt you receive.

I guess its
also a threat to others that you may think to be timid, or wanting
approval from others that "this is what will happen to you if you
don't support me" type bullying.

**You STILL don't get it. You made wild accusations and wild claims. I asked
for you to supply some evidence to support those claims. You failed to do
so. Your argument has failed.


With me, you have known me on here for a decade or so,

**I don't know you and I don't care to know you. You are clearly an idiot. I
prefer never to deal with such people. I can and regluarly deal with people
who do not share my view on many matters. They all have one thing on common:
They put forward logical, reasonable arguments to back their claims. You do
not.

know that I
generally don't bother pursuing or carrying on drawn out battles with
abusive clowns as I have better things to do.

**And yet, you contiue to sprout complete bull****, without bothering to
back your dodgy claims.


I have seen the futile results in the past, one of the most memorable
being of the group trying to convince ****wits like Miro of basic
facts of ohms law, except in his case, he is arguing against
mathematics, and mathematics in its pure form is one true science
that you cannot argue with.

I more find you an interesting example of someone who is either
mentally disturbed, very very gullible, believes unconditionally in
bull****,

**Nope. I accept that when all the planet's climatologists warn of a problem
that they are likely to be correct. I also accept that you are a complete
idiot, since you believe in some mythical bull**** about all these
climatologists being bribed, without a solitary shred of evidence to support
your claim. I also accept that you dismiss AGW, without bothering to study
the premier document on the subject.

or thinks it cool to do so, kind of like a religious cult
member, or a radical nutter - who desperately needs professional help
to be de-programmed, (this is way out of my area of expertise to do
this for you) and based on this knowledge I really don't care much
what you want to say about me, Im a big boy, been in business all my
adult life, and seen and done enough in that time of how the real
world works to not be shocked or offended any more .

**Hardly surprising, given your extremely ignorant attitudes.


I know you will believe in man-made global warming, and whatever the
next fear and control scam gets cooked up, until the day you hit the
bottom of your grave, hence the old russian saying - "only the grave
cures the hunch-backed".

**********. Unlike you, I've been examining the subject of AGW since the mid
1970s. The only thing that has altered is the amount of data that supports
the theory.




I even find your insults somewhat funny at times and get a good laugh
out of it.



Still waiting for some answers from you.......

**Still waiting for some answers.......


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

On Sep 29, 7:42*am, "Trevor Wilson" wrote:
kreed wrote:
On Sep 28, 2:42 pm, "Trevor Wilson" wrote:
kreed wrote:
On Sep 28, 12:44 pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 19:28:58 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation
It doesn't explain everything, but is a substantial part of the
puzzle.
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/brightness.shtml

NASA's Glory satellite was suppose to measure all this more
accurately as the exact effect of variations in solar output isn't
totally clear. However, the satellite failed to reach orbit.
http://glory.gsfc.nasa.gov/misison_details.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glory_(satellite)

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #Dhttp://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Also noted a news article a couple of weeks back where a NASA
scientist came out on record speaking of concerns that aliens might
attack us if we don't do something about man made global warming .

They must be getting so desparate - like a cornered rat - to trot
this rubbish out.

IIRC there were reports of "global warming" on mars also, no wonder
those martians want to come and kill us !

**Substituting lies and complete bull**** for a rational argument
does not enhance your case (such as it is). You need to respond to
my many questions and comments, rather that veering into
fantasy-land.

I'm glad that you admitted that the fear of aliens attacking over
climate change is bull**** rather than rational argument, and proving
my point that NASA or at least the NASA scientist who made this
crackpot statement is speaking "lies, complete bull**** and veering
into fantasy-land"

Im glad we are in agreement on SOMETHING, * Whew !!

**We agree on nothing. YOU made the claim about an alleged NASA scientist
making an absurd statement. YOU need to sunstantiate the claim. As usual,
you will fail in this action.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...-civilisations

snip


**Nope. I accept that when all the planet's climatologists warn of a
problem that they are likely to be correct.


All ?


**********. Unlike you, I've been examining the subject of AGW since the mid
1970s. The only thing that has altered is the amount of data that supports
the theory.



Theory ?


Arfa


Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 11:32:04 +1000, Jeßus wrote:

On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 02:14:53 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:

Hmmm. You see, this is where I get a bit ****ed off. The terms like 'denier'
that get bandied about. This is a carefully chosen word to put those who
have an 'alternate' view, firmly into the same bracket as the holocaust
deniers.

snip

My big problem is that the greenies don't have an open mind about the
situation. As far as they are concerned, it is fully proven, done, dusted,
and anyone who doesn't follow blindly down the path, is a heretic.

See any problem with what you've said between the two paragraphs?

Hmmm, indeed.

I don't see anything inconsistent whatsoever. What i see is two
statements that the AGW crowd has failed to make their case, and they
resent anyone saying so. I also see refusal to join shouting matches.
So, what do you see?

?-)

Arfa Daily wrote:
snip


**Nope. I accept that when all the planet's climatologists warn of a
problem that they are likely to be correct.


All ?

**Near enough. 97% is as close to consensus as it gets. If 97 doctors told
you that if you did not alter your diet, you would get a heart attack and 3
doctors told you not to alter your diet, because you'd be fine, what would
you do?



**********. Unlike you, I've been examining the subject of AGW since
the mid
1970s. The only thing that has altered is the amount of data that
supports the theory.



Theory ?

** http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

kreed wrote:
On Sep 29, 7:42 am, "Trevor Wilson" wrote:
kreed wrote:
On Sep 28, 2:42 pm, "Trevor Wilson" wrote:
kreed wrote:
On Sep 28, 12:44 pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 19:28:58 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation
It doesn't explain everything, but is a substantial part of the
puzzle.
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/brightness.shtml

NASA's Glory satellite was suppose to measure all this more
accurately as the exact effect of variations in solar output
isn't totally clear. However, the satellite failed to reach
orbit. http://glory.gsfc.nasa.gov/misison_details.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glory_(satellite)

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #Dhttp://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Also noted a news article a couple of weeks back where a NASA
scientist came out on record speaking of concerns that aliens
might attack us if we don't do something about man made global
warming .

They must be getting so desparate - like a cornered rat - to trot
this rubbish out.

IIRC there were reports of "global warming" on mars also, no
wonder those martians want to come and kill us !

**Substituting lies and complete bull**** for a rational argument
does not enhance your case (such as it is). You need to respond to
my many questions and comments, rather that veering into
fantasy-land.

I'm glad that you admitted that the fear of aliens attacking over
climate change is bull**** rather than rational argument, and
proving my point that NASA or at least the NASA scientist who made
this crackpot statement is speaking "lies, complete bull**** and
veering into fantasy-land"

Im glad we are in agreement on SOMETHING, Whew !!

**We agree on nothing. YOU made the claim about an alleged NASA
scientist making an absurd statement. YOU need to sunstantiate the
claim. As usual, you will fail in this action.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...-civilisations

**I take it, that you failed to actually READ the article before you made
your stupid claim. Here is the rest of what you snipped:



Hanging onto Jeff's coattails is not a reasonable response. Jeff has
presented a cogent, rational argument, that deserves a reasoned
response. He will receive one.


No, he gets a "reasoned response", as you fear that he would hang you
out to dry, and "pull your nappy down in front of the entire school,

**Unlike you, Jeff has placed some reased arguments, backed by some cites.
You present nothing to support your wild claims. BIG difference.


putting your excrement on pubicl display" metaphorically speaking -
if you started abusing him,

**********. I have NEVER abused Jeff. Abuse follows those who act like
dickheads. You have consistently failed to act reasonably and rationally.
You have failed to back your claims with any evidence.

so you are sucking up to him, and gently
trying to sucker him into your fantasy, or at least get him to give
you some credit to your nonsense to try and look clever or learned to
the rest of the group (who know what you are really like over years of
experience) to try and get their approval so the newer members will
think you to be some genius and beacon of wisdom and knowledge and try
and pull them onto your team to use them against the others.

**********. I cite facts and data. You cite absolutely nothing. Jeff has
backed his arguments with cites. You do not. Comparing yourself to Jeff is
extremely insulting to Jeff.


You also think he is undecided on the subject and can be nudged in
your direction, so you handle with care.

**********. I don't know what Jeff's position is. I don't much care. The
truth is the truth. Facts are facts. Your complete bull**** is just that:
Complete bull****. Not once have you presented any facts, or cites to back
your claims. Not once. Jeff presented cites to back his claims.

You know that I and some
others already have studied the matter,and those behind it,

**Liar. You have not read the IPCC AR4. You have, therefore, failed to study
the topic. AR4 is the premier document on the topic.

and have
made up their own minds and will not entertain your rubbish, so there
is no point in being nice to us, as it won't change anything, so you
just try and be nasty, abusive etc to impress the others.

**Not at all. I politely asked you to present data and facts to support your
claims and you failed miserably. Your continued failure to present any data
ensures that you deserve the contempt you receive.

I guess its
also a threat to others that you may think to be timid, or wanting
approval from others that "this is what will happen to you if you
don't support me" type bullying.

**You STILL don't get it. You made wild accusations and wild claims. I asked
for you to supply some evidence to support those claims. You failed to do
so. Your argument has failed.


With me, you have known me on here for a decade or so,

**I don't know you and I don't care to know you. You are clearly an idiot. I
prefer never to deal with such people. I can and regluarly deal with people
who do not share my view on many matters. They all have one thing on common:
They put forward logical, reasonable arguments to back their claims. You do
not.

know that I
generally don't bother pursuing or carrying on drawn out battles with
abusive clowns as I have better things to do.

**And yet, you contiue to sprout complete bull****, without bothering to
back your dodgy claims.


I have seen the futile results in the past, one of the most memorable
being of the group trying to convince ****wits like Miro of basic
facts of ohms law, except in his case, he is arguing against
mathematics, and mathematics in its pure form is one true science
that you cannot argue with.

I more find you an interesting example of someone who is either
mentally disturbed, very very gullible, believes unconditionally in
bull****,

**Nope. I accept that when all the planet's climatologists warn of a problem
that they are likely to be correct. I also accept that you are a complete
idiot, since you believe in some mythical bull**** about all these
climatologists being bribed, without a solitary shred of evidence to support
your claim. I also accept that you dismiss AGW, without bothering to study
the premier document on the subject.

or thinks it cool to do so, kind of like a religious cult
member, or a radical nutter - who desperately needs professional help
to be de-programmed, (this is way out of my area of expertise to do
this for you) and based on this knowledge I really don't care much
what you want to say about me, Im a big boy, been in business all my
adult life, and seen and done enough in that time of how the real
world works to not be shocked or offended any more .

**Hardly surprising, given your extremely ignorant attitudes.


I know you will believe in man-made global warming, and whatever the
next fear and control scam gets cooked up, until the day you hit the
bottom of your grave, hence the old russian saying - "only the grave
cures the hunch-backed".

**********. Unlike you, I've been examining the subject of AGW since the mid
1970s. The only thing that has altered is the amount of data that supports
the theory.




I even find your insults somewhat funny at times and get a good laugh
out of it.



Still waiting for some answers from you.......

**Still waiting for some answers.......


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

On 29/09/2011 1:17 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
Arfa Daily wrote:
snip


**Nope. I accept that when all the planet's climatologists warn of a
problem that they are likely to be correct.


All ?

**Near enough. 97% is as close to consensus as it gets. If 97 doctors told
you that if you did not alter your diet, you would get a heart attack and 3
doctors told you not to alter your diet, because you'd be fine, what would
you do?

Heres one with a fair amount of credibility who puts up a reasonable
theory contra to that put up by the IPCC. Whether he is right or wrong
is way beyond the capability of anybody here to decide, but at least he
is approaching the subject from a reasoned scientific perspective not
the screaming political one that most seem to favour.

Global warming is a fact, the only argument is whether it is natural and
we cannot do anything about it or it is caused by man made conditions
that we can control.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/research...ural-response/

On 27/09/2011 11:14 AM, Arfa Daily wrote:

My big problem is that the greenies don't have an open mind about the
situation. As far as they are concerned, it is fully proven, done,
dusted, and anyone who doesn't follow blindly down the path, is a
heretic. Well, I'm sorry, but in my mind, as long as there is the
slightest doubt, the case isn't proven and closed, and a good scientist
should keep his mind open. Fortunately, there is a recent groundswell of
alternate view from a number of equally reputable scientists, who are
finally having the balls to stand up and be counted.

My problem with both sides of the argument is that neither has an open
mind. The arguments are pointless as both have fully made up their minds
that they are right. The "Greenies" want it to be true as it fits with
their philosophy, the deniers don't want it to be true as they may have
to make some sacrifices in their lifestyle.

keithr wrote:
On 27/09/2011 11:14 AM, Arfa Daily wrote:

My big problem is that the greenies don't have an open mind about the
situation. As far as they are concerned, it is fully proven, done,
dusted, and anyone who doesn't follow blindly down the path, is a
heretic. Well, I'm sorry, but in my mind, as long as there is the
slightest doubt, the case isn't proven and closed, and a good
scientist should keep his mind open. Fortunately, there is a recent
groundswell of alternate view from a number of equally reputable
scientists, who are finally having the balls to stand up and be
counted.

My problem with both sides of the argument is that neither has an open
mind. The arguments are pointless as both have fully made up their
minds that they are right. The "Greenies" want it to be true as it
fits with their philosophy,

**I disagree. _I_ certainly would prefer that all the climatologists have it
very wrong. Sadly, as their position is one that is rooted in science, it is
highly likely that they are correct.

the deniers don't want it to be true as
they may have to make some sacrifices in their lifestyle.

**That's the way I view it.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

keithr wrote:
On 29/09/2011 1:17 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
Arfa Daily wrote:
snip


**Nope. I accept that when all the planet's climatologists warn of
a problem that they are likely to be correct.


All ?

**Near enough. 97% is as close to consensus as it gets. If 97
doctors told you that if you did not alter your diet, you would get
a heart attack and 3 doctors told you not to alter your diet,
because you'd be fine, what would you do?

Heres one with a fair amount of credibility who puts up a reasonable
theory contra to that put up by the IPCC. Whether he is right or wrong
is way beyond the capability of anybody here to decide, but at least
he is approaching the subject from a reasoned scientific perspective
not the screaming political one that most seem to favour.

Global warming is a fact, the only argument is whether it is natural
and we cannot do anything about it or it is caused by man made
conditions that we can control.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/research...ural-response/

**Whilst not proof that Spencer is wrong about climate science, it is
important to realise that Spencer is a strong proponent of 'Intelligent
Design', rather than evolution as an explanation for the way that species
have become diverse on this planet. A religious viewpoint such at Spencer's
places him in rather a poor light straight off. Spencer is a believer in the
supernatural. Not only that, but he is very active in groups that support
the notion of a supernatural explanation of how things occur on this planet.
Sad.

Roy Spencer is (partly) paid by the Heartland Institute. The Heartland
Institute is funded by Philip Morris (big tobacco), Olin Foundation (the gun
lobby) and Exxon (big oil). His views are hardly surprising, given his
employer/s.

Here are some claims made by Spencer, along with some criticisms of
Spencer's supernatural ideas:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/clou...e-feedback.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Drop...rming-bias.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc...-consensus.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/few-...al-warming.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/loeh...year-cycle.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/roy-...ensitivity.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/sate...roposphere.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-cl...nsitivity.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-...er-Part-1.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-...er-Part-2.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-...er-Part-3.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/spen...-feedback.html

It is good that you've taken the time to read about the AGW issue. I trust
that you will also take the time to read the science, from real scientists,
who do not place their faith in the supernatural, nor take their money from
big oil. This is an excellent place to start:

www.ipcc.ch


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

On Sep 30, 7:27*am, "Trevor Wilson" wrote:
keithr wrote:
On 29/09/2011 1:17 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
Arfa Daily wrote:
snip

**Nope. I accept that when all the planet's climatologists warn of
a problem that they are likely to be correct.

All ?

**Near enough. 97% is as close to consensus as it gets. If 97
doctors told you that if you did not alter your diet, you would get
a heart attack and 3 doctors told you not to alter your diet,
because you'd be fine, what would you do?

Heres one with a fair amount of credibility who puts up a reasonable
theory contra to that put up by the IPCC. Whether he is right or wrong
is way beyond the capability of anybody here to decide, but at least
he is approaching the subject from a reasoned scientific perspective
not the screaming political one that most seem to favour.

Global warming is a fact, the only argument is whether it is natural
and we cannot do anything about it or it is caused by man made
conditions that we can control.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/research...rming-as-a-nat...

**Whilst not proof that Spencer is wrong about climate science, it is
important to realise that Spencer is a strong proponent of 'Intelligent
Design', rather than evolution as an explanation for the way that species
have become diverse on this planet. A religious viewpoint such at Spencer's
places him in rather a poor light straight off. Spencer is a believer in the
supernatural. Not only that, but he is very active in groups that support
the notion of a supernatural explanation of how things occur on this planet.
Sad.

Roy Spencer is (partly) paid by the Heartland Institute. The Heartland
Institute is funded by Philip Morris (big tobacco), Olin Foundation (the gun
lobby) and Exxon (big oil). His views are hardly surprising, given his
employer/s.

Here are some claims made by Spencer, along with some criticisms of
Spencer's supernatural ideas:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/clou...e-feedback.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Drop...uce-warming-bi...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc...-consensus.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/few-...al-warming.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/loeh...year-cycle.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/roy-...edback-climate...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/sate...warming-tropos...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-cl...w-climate-sens...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-...er-Part-1.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-...er-Part-2.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-...er-Part-3.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/spen...f-surface-temp...

It is good that you've taken the time to read about the AGW issue. I trust
that you will also take the time to read the science, from real scientists,
who do not place their faith in the supernatural, nor take their money from
big oil. This is an excellent place to start:

www.ipcc.ch


Yes, this is an organisation funded by big government, banksters etc,
who stand to gain trillions in revenue from this. Dont worry though,
they are the good guys and deserve our money, so we must go along with
it.

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

kreed wrote:
On Sep 30, 7:27 am, "Trevor Wilson" wrote:
keithr wrote:
On 29/09/2011 1:17 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
Arfa Daily wrote:
snip

**Nope. I accept that when all the planet's climatologists warn
of a problem that they are likely to be correct.

All ?

**Near enough. 97% is as close to consensus as it gets. If 97
doctors told you that if you did not alter your diet, you would get
a heart attack and 3 doctors told you not to alter your diet,
because you'd be fine, what would you do?

Heres one with a fair amount of credibility who puts up a reasonable
theory contra to that put up by the IPCC. Whether he is right or
wrong is way beyond the capability of anybody here to decide, but
at least he is approaching the subject from a reasoned scientific
perspective not the screaming political one that most seem to
favour.

Global warming is a fact, the only argument is whether it is natural
and we cannot do anything about it or it is caused by man made
conditions that we can control.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/research...rming-as-a-nat...

**Whilst not proof that Spencer is wrong about climate science, it is
important to realise that Spencer is a strong proponent of
'Intelligent Design', rather than evolution as an explanation for
the way that species have become diverse on this planet. A religious
viewpoint such at Spencer's places him in rather a poor light
straight off. Spencer is a believer in the supernatural. Not only
that, but he is very active in groups that support the notion of a
supernatural explanation of how things occur on this planet. Sad.

Roy Spencer is (partly) paid by the Heartland Institute. The
Heartland Institute is funded by Philip Morris (big tobacco), Olin
Foundation (the gun lobby) and Exxon (big oil). His views are hardly
surprising, given his employer/s.

Here are some claims made by Spencer, along with some criticisms of
Spencer's supernatural ideas:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/clou...e-feedback.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Drop...uce-warming-bi...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc...-consensus.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/few-...al-warming.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/loeh...year-cycle.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/roy-...edback-climate...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/sate...warming-tropos...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-cl...w-climate-sens...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-...er-Part-1.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-...er-Part-2.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-...er-Part-3.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/spen...f-surface-temp...

It is good that you've taken the time to read about the AGW issue. I
trust that you will also take the time to read the science, from
real scientists, who do not place their faith in the supernatural,
nor take their money from big oil. This is an excellent place to
start:

www.ipcc.ch


Yes, this is an organisation funded by big government,

**Of course. It was set up by the World Meteorological Organisation and the
UN Environment Programme. As such, it was funded by the UN and thus by
member states of the UN.


banksters etc,

**"Banksters"? What are "banksters"? Which "banksters" funded the IPCC?
Evidence please.


who stand to gain trillions in revenue from this.

**Do they? How? The IPCC reports on the science. The IPCC was set up by the
UN. The UN is "owned" by the 193 members of the UN. Thus, everyone on the
planet is part of the UN.

Dont worry though,
they are the good guys and deserve our money, so we must go along with
it.

**Well, they do have all tht science to back them. You know science? The
stuff you have NOT managed to present, at any time during this thread. Would
you prefer to listen to the words of big oil and big tobacco for your
independent information?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

On Sep 30, 9:03*am, "Trevor Wilson" wrote:
kreed wrote:
On Sep 30, 7:27 am, "Trevor Wilson" wrote:
keithr wrote:
On 29/09/2011 1:17 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
Arfa Daily wrote:
snip

**Nope. I accept that when all the planet's climatologists warn
of a problem that they are likely to be correct.

All ?

**Near enough. 97% is as close to consensus as it gets. If 97
doctors told you that if you did not alter your diet, you would get
a heart attack and 3 doctors told you not to alter your diet,
because you'd be fine, what would you do?

Heres one with a fair amount of credibility who puts up a reasonable
theory contra to that put up by the IPCC. Whether he is right or
wrong is way beyond the capability of anybody here to decide, but
at least he is approaching the subject from a reasoned scientific
perspective not the screaming political one that most seem to
favour.

Global warming is a fact, the only argument is whether it is natural
and we cannot do anything about it or it is caused by man made
conditions that we can control.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/research...rming-as-a-nat....

**Whilst not proof that Spencer is wrong about climate science, it is
important to realise that Spencer is a strong proponent of
'Intelligent Design', rather than evolution as an explanation for
the way that species have become diverse on this planet. A religious
viewpoint such at Spencer's places him in rather a poor light
straight off. Spencer is a believer in the supernatural. Not only
that, but he is very active in groups that support the notion of a
supernatural explanation of how things occur on this planet. Sad.

Roy Spencer is (partly) paid by the Heartland Institute. The
Heartland Institute is funded by Philip Morris (big tobacco), Olin
Foundation (the gun lobby) and Exxon (big oil). His views are hardly
surprising, given his employer/s.

Here are some claims made by Spencer, along with some criticisms of
Spencer's supernatural ideas:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/clou...e-feedback.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Drop...uce-warming-bi....

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc...-consensus.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/few-...al-warming.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/loeh...year-cycle.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/roy-...edback-climate....

http://www.skepticalscience.com/sate...warming-tropos....

http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-cl...w-climate-sens....

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-...er-Part-1.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-...er-Part-2.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-...er-Part-3.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/spen...f-surface-temp....

It is good that you've taken the time to read about the AGW issue. I
trust that you will also take the time to read the science, from
real scientists, who do not place their faith in the supernatural,
nor take their money from big oil. This is an excellent place to
start:

www.ipcc.ch

Yes, this is an organisation funded by big government,

**Of course. It was set up by the World Meteorological Organisation and the
UN Environment Programme. As such, it was funded by the UN and thus by
member states of the UN.

banksters etc,

**"Banksters"? What are "banksters"? Which "banksters" funded the IPCC?
Evidence please.

who stand to gain trillions in revenue from this.

**Do they? How? The IPCC reports on the science. The IPCC was set up by the
UN. The UN is "owned" by the 193 members of the UN. Thus, everyone on the
planet is part of the UN.


It is a modern version of the USSR, - a global USSR if you prefer.
Take a look at UN policies implemented in Australia and tell me how
many of them have actually benefited society and the nation and not
hurt it

Saying that the IPCC is setup by the UN only further buries its
credibility.

* Dont worry though,

they are the good guys and deserve our money, so we must go along with
it.

**Well, they do have all tht science to back them. You know science? The
stuff you have NOT managed to present, at any time during this thread. Would
you prefer to listen to the words of big oil and big tobacco for your
independent information?

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

kreed wrote:
On Sep 30, 9:03 am, "Trevor Wilson" wrote:
kreed wrote:
On Sep 30, 7:27 am, "Trevor Wilson" wrote:
keithr wrote:
On 29/09/2011 1:17 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
Arfa Daily wrote:
snip

**Nope. I accept that when all the planet's climatologists warn
of a problem that they are likely to be correct.

All ?

**Near enough. 97% is as close to consensus as it gets. If 97
doctors told you that if you did not alter your diet, you would
get a heart attack and 3 doctors told you not to alter your diet,
because you'd be fine, what would you do?

Heres one with a fair amount of credibility who puts up a
reasonable theory contra to that put up by the IPCC. Whether he
is right or wrong is way beyond the capability of anybody here to
decide, but at least he is approaching the subject from a
reasoned scientific perspective not the screaming political one
that most seem to favour.

Global warming is a fact, the only argument is whether it is
natural and we cannot do anything about it or it is caused by man
made conditions that we can control.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/research...rming-as-a-nat...

**Whilst not proof that Spencer is wrong about climate science, it
is important to realise that Spencer is a strong proponent of
'Intelligent Design', rather than evolution as an explanation for
the way that species have become diverse on this planet. A
religious viewpoint such at Spencer's places him in rather a poor
light straight off. Spencer is a believer in the supernatural. Not
only that, but he is very active in groups that support the notion
of a supernatural explanation of how things occur on this planet.
Sad.

Roy Spencer is (partly) paid by the Heartland Institute. The
Heartland Institute is funded by Philip Morris (big tobacco), Olin
Foundation (the gun lobby) and Exxon (big oil). His views are
hardly surprising, given his employer/s.

Here are some claims made by Spencer, along with some criticisms of
Spencer's supernatural ideas:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/clou...e-feedback.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Drop...uce-warming-bi...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc...-consensus.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/few-...al-warming.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/loeh...year-cycle.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/roy-...edback-climate...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/sate...warming-tropos...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-cl...w-climate-sens...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-...er-Part-1.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-...er-Part-2.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-...er-Part-3.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/spen...f-surface-temp...

It is good that you've taken the time to read about the AGW issue.
I trust that you will also take the time to read the science, from
real scientists, who do not place their faith in the supernatural,
nor take their money from big oil. This is an excellent place to
start:

www.ipcc.ch

Yes, this is an organisation funded by big government,

**Of course. It was set up by the World Meteorological Organisation
and the UN Environment Programme. As such, it was funded by the UN
and thus by member states of the UN.

banksters etc,

**"Banksters"? What are "banksters"? Which "banksters" funded the
IPCC? Evidence please.

who stand to gain trillions in revenue from this.

**Do they? How? The IPCC reports on the science. The IPCC was set up
by the UN. The UN is "owned" by the 193 members of the UN. Thus,
everyone on the planet is part of the UN.


It is a modern version of the USSR, - a global USSR if you prefer.
Take a look at UN policies implemented in Australia and tell me how
many of them have actually benefited society and the nation and not
hurt it

**Here are the questions that you (most recently) failed to answer:

**"Banksters"? What are "banksters"? Which "banksters" funded the IPCC?
Evidence please.



Saying that the IPCC is setup by the UN only further buries its
credibility.

**How? The UN os "owned" by all the nations on the planet. Is it perfect?
Nup. Would you prefer that the UN was controlled by (say) Enron, Nestle',
Union Carbide, GE or Philip Morris? Is that what you would prefer? Why?


Dont worry though,

they are the good guys and deserve our money, so we must go along
with it.

**Well, they do have all tht science to back them. You know science?
The stuff you have NOT managed to present, at any time during this
thread. Would you prefer to listen to the words of big oil and big
tobacco for your independent information?


**Would you prefer to listen to the words of big oil and big tobacco for
your independent information?

Why do you continually avoid answering ANY of my questions?
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...
Arfa Daily wrote:
snip


**Nope. I accept that when all the planet's climatologists warn of a
problem that they are likely to be correct.


All ?

**Near enough. 97% is as close to consensus as it gets. If 97 doctors told
you that if you did not alter your diet, you would get a heart attack and
3 doctors told you not to alter your diet, because you'd be fine, what
would you do?




I really don't want to get drawn into this again, and I have no particular
desire to fall out with you - you've helped me out in the past with
schematics, and for that I am grateful. But I am really struggling with all
of this. For a start, 97% is up from the 95% that you reckoned it was
earlier in the thread. You make a case for what a doctor might say, but
let's turn that around. If one of your children, say, was up for murder, but
there was a 5% chance that they didn't do it, would you consider that to be
a proven case ? I certainly wouldn't.

Let me throw this into the equation :

http://www.mlive.com/opinion/flint/i...global_wa.html

which tells the story of 650 scientists that apparently spoke out against
the case. Now I'm sure that there is some reason that it is all lies, or
should be discredited, but the same story did appear in many other places,
so I have to give it some credibility. 650 seems like quite a big number to
me.





**********. Unlike you, I've been examining the subject of AGW since
the mid
1970s. The only thing that has altered is the amount of data that
supports the theory.



Theory ?

** http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory



OK. Let's reproduce it here, to save everyone having to go look at your link

"1. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as
correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a
class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle,
law, doctrine. "

Yes, I am aware of this variation of the definition of the word, when used
specifically in connection to science. However, you will note that it
doesn't actually say 'proven', only 'commonly regarded' and that can be used
as 'a principle of explanation'. The fact that Einstein's theory of
relativity is cited as an example is interesting, in that it has gone so
long without actually being proved, that it has become scientific doctrine -
dogma even. And yet just last week, it was announced to the world that it
was likely that a particle which travelled faster than light, had been
clearly detected. Professor Brian Cox, a scientist that I have a deal of
respect for in his primary field of quantum physics, and who was involved in
the experiments to locate this particle, said that if it was correct, it
would turn quantum physics knowledge on its head, and blow Mr Einstein out
of the water. Who would ever have thought that ? Do you consider the theory
of evolution to be a proven case ? A good many reputable scientists and
commentators don't ...

Strangely, having given the definition in the slightly vague terms that they
have, your dictionary then goes on at the end to use the words 'principle',
'law' and 'doctrine' as synonyms, which they clearly aren't as they are much
more closely defined words.

So as far as I am concerned, my query as to your use of the word 'theory',
has not been altered at all. The general understanding of a theory, is that
it is one stage up from hypothesis, in that it is an idea or set of ideas,
whose validity is supported by known facts, the key word being 'supported'
not 'proven'

Arfa

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"keithr" wrote in message
...
On 29/09/2011 1:17 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
Arfa Daily wrote:
snip


**Nope. I accept that when all the planet's climatologists warn of a
problem that they are likely to be correct.


All ?

**Near enough. 97% is as close to consensus as it gets. If 97 doctors
told
you that if you did not alter your diet, you would get a heart attack and
3
doctors told you not to alter your diet, because you'd be fine, what
would
you do?

Heres one with a fair amount of credibility who puts up a reasonable
theory contra to that put up by the IPCC. Whether he is right or wrong is
way beyond the capability of anybody here to decide, but at least he is
approaching the subject from a reasoned scientific perspective not the
screaming political one that most seem to favour.

Global warming is a fact, the only argument is whether it is natural and
we cannot do anything about it or it is caused by man made conditions that
we can control.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/research...ural-response/

An interesting read. Also interesting, is the fact that this guy is a
meteorologist.

Arfa

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...
keithr wrote:
On 29/09/2011 1:17 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
Arfa Daily wrote:
snip


**Nope. I accept that when all the planet's climatologists warn of
a problem that they are likely to be correct.


All ?

**Near enough. 97% is as close to consensus as it gets. If 97
doctors told you that if you did not alter your diet, you would get
a heart attack and 3 doctors told you not to alter your diet,
because you'd be fine, what would you do?

Heres one with a fair amount of credibility who puts up a reasonable
theory contra to that put up by the IPCC. Whether he is right or wrong
is way beyond the capability of anybody here to decide, but at least
he is approaching the subject from a reasoned scientific perspective
not the screaming political one that most seem to favour.

Global warming is a fact, the only argument is whether it is natural
and we cannot do anything about it or it is caused by man made
conditions that we can control.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/research...ural-response/

**Whilst not proof that Spencer is wrong about climate science, it is
important to realise that Spencer is a strong proponent of 'Intelligent
Design', rather than evolution as an explanation for the way that species
have become diverse on this planet. A religious viewpoint such at
Spencer's places him in rather a poor light straight off. Spencer is a
believer in the supernatural. Not only that, but he is very active in
groups that support the notion of a supernatural explanation of how things
occur on this planet. Sad.

Roy Spencer is (partly) paid by the Heartland Institute. The Heartland
Institute is funded by Philip Morris (big tobacco), Olin Foundation (the
gun lobby) and Exxon (big oil). His views are hardly surprising, given his
employer/s.

Here are some claims made by Spencer, along with some criticisms of
Spencer's supernatural ideas:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/clou...e-feedback.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Drop...rming-bias.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc...-consensus.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/few-...al-warming.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/loeh...year-cycle.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/roy-...ensitivity.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/sate...roposphere.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-cl...nsitivity.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-...er-Part-1.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-...er-Part-2.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-...er-Part-3.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/spen...-feedback.html

It is good that you've taken the time to read about the AGW issue. I trust
that you will also take the time to read the science, from real
scientists, who do not place their faith in the supernatural, nor take
their money from big oil. This is an excellent place to start:

www.ipcc.ch


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



You're not by any chance a JW as well, are you Trevor ... ? :-)

Arfa

Arfa Daily wrote:
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...
Arfa Daily wrote:
snip


**Nope. I accept that when all the planet's climatologists warn of
a problem that they are likely to be correct.


All ?

**Near enough. 97% is as close to consensus as it gets. If 97
doctors told you that if you did not alter your diet, you would get
a heart attack and 3 doctors told you not to alter your diet,
because you'd be fine, what would you do?




I really don't want to get drawn into this again, and I have no
particular desire to fall out with you - you've helped me out in the
past with schematics, and for that I am grateful.

**There is absolutely no reason for two intelligent people to get drawn into
a slanging match.

But I am really
struggling with all of this. For a start, 97% is up from the 95% that
you reckoned it was earlier in the thread.

**The 95% confidence refers to the confidence level that climatologists have
WRT the cause of global warming being anthropogenic in nature. The figure in
the 1970s, was something like 70% and has been rising ever since. The 97%
figure represents the number of climatologists that are convinced that AGW
is the most likely explanation for the warming.

You make a case for what a
doctor might say, but let's turn that around. If one of your
children, say, was up for murder, but there was a 5% chance that they
didn't do it, would you consider that to be a proven case ? I
certainly wouldn't.

**Indeed, but they are quite different scenarios, with very different
outcomes. Would you care to respond to my question please?


Let me throw this into the equation :

http://www.mlive.com/opinion/flint/i...global_wa.html

which tells the story of 650 scientists that apparently spoke out
against the case. Now I'm sure that there is some reason that it is
all lies, or should be discredited, but the same story did appear in
many other places, so I have to give it some credibility. 650 seems
like quite a big number to me.

**Do you have a reputable cite for this alleged statement? That article is
clearly biased and highly flawed in many ways. I'd like some independent
verification of the 650 scientist claim.






**********. Unlike you, I've been examining the subject of AGW since
the mid
1970s. The only thing that has altered is the amount of data that
supports the theory.



Theory ?

** http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory



OK. Let's reproduce it here, to save everyone having to go look at
your link
"1. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly
regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation
and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of
relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine. "

Yes, I am aware of this variation of the definition of the word, when
used specifically in connection to science. However, you will note
that it doesn't actually say 'proven', only 'commonly regarded' and
that can be used as 'a principle of explanation'.

**Correct. AGW is a theory. An highly credible one, that is embraced by the
vast majority of climatologists.

The fact that
Einstein's theory of relativity is cited as an example is
interesting, in that it has gone so long without actually being
proved, that it has become scientific doctrine - dogma even. And yet
just last week, it was announced to the world that it was likely that
a particle which travelled faster than light, had been clearly
detected.

**Not proven yet. In the same week, other parts of Einstein's work has been
validated.

Professor Brian Cox, a scientist that I have a deal of
respect for in his primary field of quantum physics, and who was
involved in the experiments to locate this particle, said that if it
was correct, it would turn quantum physics knowledge on its head, and
blow Mr Einstein out of the water. Who would ever have thought that ?

**Me, for one. Einstein was known to be searching up blind alleys in SOME of
his work. That does not make Einstein an idiot. NOr does it make him always
wrong. It simply makes Einstein 99% right.

Do you consider the theory of evolution to be a proven case ?

**No. There never was a "theory of evolution". Evolution is an observed
fact. Darwin proposed his Theory of Natural Selection to explain evolution.
Darwin was a brilliant man.


A good
many reputable scientists and commentators don't ...

**Of coruse. They know that evolution is not a theory. They know that Darwin
proposed Natural Selection to explain evolution.


Strangely, having given the definition in the slightly vague terms
that they have, your dictionary then goes on at the end to use the
words 'principle', 'law' and 'doctrine' as synonyms, which they
clearly aren't as they are much more closely defined words.

**Nonetheless, AGW remains an highly credible theory that attempts to
explain the warming of this planet that we are presently witnessing. IT is
not a "law", nor is it a fact, beyond doubt. Doubts remain. However, the
confidence level pertaining to AGW is running at around 95%.


So as far as I am concerned, my query as to your use of the word
'theory', has not been altered at all. The general understanding of a
theory, is that it is one stage up from hypothesis, in that it is an
idea or set of ideas, whose validity is supported by known facts, the
key word being 'supported' not 'proven'

**Correct. By the time AGW is proven, it will be too late to remedy it. I
can't live with that.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Arfa Daily wrote:
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...
keithr wrote:
On 29/09/2011 1:17 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
Arfa Daily wrote:
snip


**Nope. I accept that when all the planet's climatologists warn
of a problem that they are likely to be correct.


All ?

**Near enough. 97% is as close to consensus as it gets. If 97
doctors told you that if you did not alter your diet, you would get
a heart attack and 3 doctors told you not to alter your diet,
because you'd be fine, what would you do?

Heres one with a fair amount of credibility who puts up a reasonable
theory contra to that put up by the IPCC. Whether he is right or
wrong is way beyond the capability of anybody here to decide, but
at least he is approaching the subject from a reasoned scientific
perspective not the screaming political one that most seem to
favour. Global warming is a fact, the only argument is whether it is
natural
and we cannot do anything about it or it is caused by man made
conditions that we can control.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/research...ural-response/

**Whilst not proof that Spencer is wrong about climate science, it is
important to realise that Spencer is a strong proponent of
'Intelligent Design', rather than evolution as an explanation for
the way that species have become diverse on this planet. A religious
viewpoint such at Spencer's places him in rather a poor light
straight off. Spencer is a believer in the supernatural. Not only
that, but he is very active in groups that support the notion of a
supernatural explanation of how things occur on this planet. Sad.

Roy Spencer is (partly) paid by the Heartland Institute. The
Heartland Institute is funded by Philip Morris (big tobacco), Olin
Foundation (the gun lobby) and Exxon (big oil). His views are hardly
surprising, given his employer/s.

Here are some claims made by Spencer, along with some criticisms of
Spencer's supernatural ideas:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/clou...e-feedback.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Drop...rming-bias.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc...-consensus.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/few-...al-warming.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/loeh...year-cycle.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/roy-...ensitivity.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/sate...roposphere.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-cl...nsitivity.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-...er-Part-1.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-...er-Part-2.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-...er-Part-3.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/spen...-feedback.html

It is good that you've taken the time to read about the AGW issue. I
trust that you will also take the time to read the science, from real
scientists, who do not place their faith in the supernatural, nor
take their money from big oil. This is an excellent place to start:

www.ipcc.ch


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



You're not by any chance a JW as well, are you Trevor ... ? :-)

**I am not well regarded by Jehovah's Witness', nor by Mormans. When
religious nutters turn up on my doorstep to push their peculiar religion
down my throat, I feel zero compuction in stting them down, offering them a
cup of tea and then proceding to lecture them on science and the nonsensical
nature of supernatural beliefs. Most hurridly excuse themselves and make
their escape.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Arfa Daily wrote:
"keithr" wrote in message
...
On 29/09/2011 1:17 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
Arfa Daily wrote:
snip


**Nope. I accept that when all the planet's climatologists warn
of a problem that they are likely to be correct.


All ?

**Near enough. 97% is as close to consensus as it gets. If 97
doctors told
you that if you did not alter your diet, you would get a heart
attack and 3
doctors told you not to alter your diet, because you'd be fine, what
would
you do?

Heres one with a fair amount of credibility who puts up a reasonable
theory contra to that put up by the IPCC. Whether he is right or
wrong is way beyond the capability of anybody here to decide, but at
least he is approaching the subject from a reasoned scientific
perspective not the screaming political one that most seem to favour.

Global warming is a fact, the only argument is whether it is natural
and we cannot do anything about it or it is caused by man made
conditions that we can control.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/research...ural-response/

An interesting read. Also interesting, is the fact that this guy is a
meteorologist.

**Have you taken the time to read IPCC AR4?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 11:52:27 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

Let me throw this into the equation :

http://www.mlive.com/opinion/flint/i...global_wa.html

which tells the story of 650 scientists that apparently spoke out
against the case. Now I'm sure that there is some reason that it is
all lies, or should be discredited, but the same story did appear in
many other places, so I have to give it some credibility. 650 seems
like quite a big number to me.

**Do you have a reputable cite for this alleged statement? That article is
clearly biased and highly flawed in many ways. I'd like some independent
verification of the 650 scientist claim.

Here's the original report to the US Senate Environment and Public
Works Committee:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947 f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9

Some general comments on the above:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_ id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

1000 scientists as of Dec 2010:
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-International-Scientists-Dissent-Over-ManMade-Global-Warming-Claims--Challenge-UN-IPCC--Gore

Revised 2010 version of the report:
http://hw.libsyn.com/p/b/f/6/bf663fd2376ffeca/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf?sid=b6c4660adeeec6 6b4b7e4b116e831bbb&l_sid=27695&l_eid=&l_mid=233620 1

Incidentally, only about 20% of the IPCC scientists have anything to
do with climate in their daytime academic jobs. Should the IPCC
really be considered authoritative?
http://www.globalwarming.org/2009/02/16/christyschlesinger-debate-part-ii/

I'm not sure how to do an independent verification, since the AGW
debate has successfully polarized just about everyone involved in
climate research. I could probably conjur someone neutral from the
non-climatology scientists, but those would not be authoritative.
Surely you're not looking for research papers published by
non-climatologists?

Methinks you might find the text and links in the 2010 report to be
rather umm... interesting. 321 pages is a bit much, but I expect to
be done reading sometime tonite.

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

On 30/09/2011 7:27 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
keithr wrote:
On 29/09/2011 1:17 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
Arfa Daily wrote:
snip


**Nope. I accept that when all the planet's climatologists warn of
a problem that they are likely to be correct.


All ?

**Near enough. 97% is as close to consensus as it gets. If 97
doctors told you that if you did not alter your diet, you would get
a heart attack and 3 doctors told you not to alter your diet,
because you'd be fine, what would you do?

Heres one with a fair amount of credibility who puts up a reasonable
theory contra to that put up by the IPCC. Whether he is right or wrong
is way beyond the capability of anybody here to decide, but at least
he is approaching the subject from a reasoned scientific perspective
not the screaming political one that most seem to favour.

Global warming is a fact, the only argument is whether it is natural
and we cannot do anything about it or it is caused by man made
conditions that we can control.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/research...ural-response/

**Whilst not proof that Spencer is wrong about climate science, it is
important to realise that Spencer is a strong proponent of 'Intelligent
Design', rather than evolution as an explanation for the way that species
have become diverse on this planet. A religious viewpoint such at Spencer's
places him in rather a poor light straight off. Spencer is a believer in the
supernatural. Not only that, but he is very active in groups that support
the notion of a supernatural explanation of how things occur on this planet.
Sad.

Roy Spencer is (partly) paid by the Heartland Institute. The Heartland
Institute is funded by Philip Morris (big tobacco), Olin Foundation (the gun
lobby) and Exxon (big oil). His views are hardly surprising, given his
employer/s.

Here are some claims made by Spencer, along with some criticisms of
Spencer's supernatural ideas:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/clou...e-feedback.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Drop...rming-bias.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc...-consensus.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/few-...al-warming.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/loeh...year-cycle.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/roy-...ensitivity.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/sate...roposphere.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-cl...nsitivity.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-...er-Part-1.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-...er-Part-2.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-...er-Part-3.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/spen...-feedback.html

It is good that you've taken the time to read about the AGW issue. I trust
that you will also take the time to read the science, from real scientists,
who do not place their faith in the supernatural, nor take their money from
big oil. This is an excellent place to start:

www.ipcc.ch

The question is whether you have read his arguments or just the
refutations that others have written about them.

On Sep 30, 11:55*am, "Trevor Wilson" wrote:
Arfa Daily wrote:
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...
keithr wrote:
On 29/09/2011 1:17 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
Arfa Daily wrote:
snip

**Nope. I accept that when all the planet's climatologists warn
of a problem that they are likely to be correct.

All ?

**Near enough. 97% is as close to consensus as it gets. If 97
doctors told you that if you did not alter your diet, you would get
a heart attack and 3 doctors told you not to alter your diet,
because you'd be fine, what would you do?

Heres one with a fair amount of credibility who puts up a reasonable
theory contra to that put up by the IPCC. Whether he is right or
wrong is way beyond the capability of anybody here to decide, but
at least he is approaching the subject from a reasoned scientific
perspective not the screaming political one that most seem to
favour. Global warming is a fact, the only argument is whether it is
natural
and we cannot do anything about it or it is caused by man made
conditions that we can control.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/research...rming-as-a-nat....

**Whilst not proof that Spencer is wrong about climate science, it is
important to realise that Spencer is a strong proponent of
'Intelligent Design', rather than evolution as an explanation for
the way that species have become diverse on this planet. A religious
viewpoint such at Spencer's places him in rather a poor light
straight off. Spencer is a believer in the supernatural. Not only
that, but he is very active in groups that support the notion of a
supernatural explanation of how things occur on this planet. Sad.

Roy Spencer is (partly) paid by the Heartland Institute. The
Heartland Institute is funded by Philip Morris (big tobacco), Olin
Foundation (the gun lobby) and Exxon (big oil). His views are hardly
surprising, given his employer/s.

Here are some claims made by Spencer, along with some criticisms of
Spencer's supernatural ideas:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/clou...e-feedback.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Drop...uce-warming-bi....

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc...-consensus.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/few-...al-warming.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/loeh...year-cycle.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/roy-...edback-climate....

http://www.skepticalscience.com/sate...warming-tropos....

http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-cl...w-climate-sens....

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-...er-Part-1.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-...er-Part-2.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-...er-Part-3.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/spen...f-surface-temp....

It is good that you've taken the time to read about the AGW issue. I
trust that you will also take the time to read the science, from real
scientists, who do not place their faith in the supernatural, nor
take their money from big oil. This is an excellent place to start:

www.ipcc.ch

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

You're not by any chance a JW as well, are you Trevor ... *? * *:-)

**I am not well regarded by Jehovah's Witness', nor by Mormans. When
religious nutters turn up on my doorstep to push their peculiar religion
down my throat, I feel zero compuction in stting them down, offering them a
cup of tea and then proceding to lecture them on science and the nonsensical
nature of supernatural beliefs. Most hurridly excuse themselves and make
their escape.

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

Thats because it isnt a corporation, with real money, media and power
behind it. If it was, he would believe anything they told him

On 9/30/2011 7:08 AM, kreed wrote:
Thats because it isnt a corporation, with real money, media and power
behind it. If it was, he would believe anything they told him

Sounds like Scientology would be the perfect fit then.

Jeff

--
"Everything from Crackers to Coffins"

On Sep 29, 7:24*am, "Trevor Wilson" wrote:
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 14:24:35 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

* Clear, unequivocal evidence that the planet is warming at a faster
rate at any time in the last 600,000 years.

Ahem...
http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/All_Comp.png

**Er, 1978 ~ 2010 is not 600,000 years. Not even close. However, this graph
may provide a little more information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg

Not quite 600,000 years, but considerably more than 30. Here's some more
information:

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Pre...ning/New_Data/

And:

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Pre.../Closer_Look/i...

from:
http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.html

* Clear, unequivocal evidence that the planet is experiencing a rate
of CO2 rise that is faster than at any time in the last 600,000
years.

Ahem...
http://www.junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/UAHMSUglobe.html

**Again, a 30 year trend merely backs my claim.



* Clear, unequivocal evidence that the rate of temperature rise has
been closely linked to CO2 rise in the past.

Yep. *Track volcanoes.
http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/scale2.html
http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/scale1.html

**What are you trying to say? That the temerature of the planet is rising?
That CO2 levels are rising? No argument from me.



Ok, I'll be the first to mention that Steven Milloy may have taken
money from Exxon (indirectly), but it has never been proven. *Decide
for yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Milloy

**The data presented shows:

* That CO2 levels are rising.
* That average temperatures are trending upwards.

I have no issue with that data.



Since you're so sure that AGW is a proven thing, maybe you can collect
the $500,000 from Milloy? *Send a few dollars my way if you succeed:
http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com

**I am satisfied that AGW has been shown to be the most likey explanation
for the temperature rise that has been noted, with around 95% confidence.
That is not 100% confidence and would likely not qualify for the money. It
is likely that, by the time 100% confidence has been reached, several things
will have occured:

* Milloy will be dead.
* VERY serious problems associated with global warming will be occuring and
the planet will have descended into a state of anarchy. US Dollars will
likely be virtually worthless. Food will be only currency of value.



* Clear, unequivocal evidence that Solar variability fails to
account for the temperature rise over the last 200 years.

Maybe. *The problem is that none of the satellites are able to measure
planetary albedo with sufficient accuracy to make a definitive
determination.

**Which is why measuring the rate of heat retention by the oceans is so
important:

http://www.bom.gov.au/inside/eiab/St...10-updated.pdf

Examine the graph on page 4. The planet's oceans store vastly more heat than
the troposphere does. The oceans are warming.

* We can do almost nothing in the way of measuring

albedo from the ground. *The plan is for the satellite to measure how
much energy is reflected by the planet (which includes atmospheric,
ocean, ice, land, etc) and also solar output. *The energy difference
is presumed to be what the planet absorbs. *Note that all the energy
is not necessarily at IR (heating). *Apparently it's sufficiently
important that NASA burned $424 million on the failed Glory launch,
and other global warming related birds. *The current assumption that
solar variations do not account for the alleged rise in average
temperatures is based on computer models with some rather serious
potential errors.

**Really? Which errors? We know that the Sun output has diminished
(slightly) over the past couple of decades and yet the temperature trend of
the Earth is still up.



There's also a rather odd problem of just what the satellites are
actually measuring. *Temperature varies with altitude. *Satellite IR
imagers measure through all the various layers of the atmosphere. *If
there are clouds covering a land mass, the IR imager gets the
temperature of the clouds, not the ground. *So, to prevent this
obvious anomaly, the computers are set to only read numbers where
there are no clouds. *However, that discounts the effects of aerosols
and particulates (i.e. dust) in the upper atmosphere, which does a
marvelous job of reflecting sunlight into the IR imager. *Volcanoes
make it really difficult to get accurate readings. *Plenty of other
complications requiring the usual tweaks, adjustments, compensations,
normalization, and cherry picking. *Oh well.

**Which is why ocean temperature measurements are so important. It is the
planet's oceans that contain the most heat. By a considerable margin.



What Malloy has done with the "global thermometer" mentioned above is
to take as much of the METAR and NOAA temperature data as possible and
average all of it. *The theory is that if you're faced with a large
number of potentially erroneous data points, and don't have the means
to reduce the errors, averaging all the bad data together will somehow
result in good data. *That's because the errors will tend to be in
random directions and hopefully cancel. *Since the IPCC uses the same
method, one can presume it to be valid. *However, I have my doubts.

Anyway, I have not attempted to debunk anything that you've offered.
What I've done it attempt to undermine your apparently unshakable
certainty in AGW and the IPCC. *If I've set you on the path of
critical thinking and academic skepticism, then I haven't wasted my
time.

**I do not have an "unshakable certainty in AGW and the IPCC". I accept that
the 95% certainty of AGW is a reasonable figure. What I find irrational is
the fact that many people seem to be clinging to the 5% uncertainty and
hoping that a very large number of very smart scientists are wrong.

Fundamentally, the way I see it is like this:

* If we spend a few Bucks today to mitigate CO2 emissions, we may be able to
avert the 95% probability of disaster.
* If we don't spend the money today, then it is highly probable (95%
certainty) that the cost will escalate with each passing year, to a point
where we will be unable to fund mitigation.
* If the scientists are wrong and we spend a few Bucks now, then it's cost
us some money.
* If the scientists are right and we don't spend the money, our civilisation
will not likely survive.

Make no mistake: I did not say that humans will be wiped out. Many will
survive. Anarchy is loking like a real probability.


Look at the REAL threats around you. Including the ones posed by the
backers of this fear campaign. That is far more real and far more
certain than some religious "pay us tithes (carbon tax) or the gods of
the sky will unleash fire (Global warming) on you"

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

On Sep 30, 10:22*pm, Jeffrey Angus wrote:
On 9/30/2011 7:08 AM, kreed wrote:

Thats because it isnt a corporation, with real money, media and power
behind it. *If it was, he would believe anything they told him

Sounds like Scientology would be the perfect fit then.


LOL - if they did a presentation for Trev by someone in a lab coat
pretending to look intelligent, and could "prove" that he would be
damned for eternity if he didnt get fully involved, then he would be
sucked right on


Jeff

--
"Everything from Crackers to Coffins"

On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 07:24:52 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 14:24:35 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

* Clear, unequivocal evidence that the planet is warming at a faster
rate at any time in the last 600,000 years.

Ahem...
http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/All_Comp.png

**Er, 1978 ~ 2010 is not 600,000 years. Not even close. However, this graph
may provide a little more information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg

Not quite 600,000 years, but considerably more than 30.

I don't have a huge amount of time to take apart the graphs. So, I
selected just the one above. The first thing I noticed is that there
are no vertical grid lines, making it difficult to determine whether a
CO2 peak caused warming, or whether it was the other way around. So,
dragging out GIMP photo editor, I added vertical grid lines. I also
reversed the graph so that time goes from left to right. Today is on
the right.

http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/Vostok_Petit_data_03.jpg

Note the circled peaks. Note that the temperature peak precedes the
CO2 rise in all 3 visible peaks. I'm not quite sure what to do about
the most recent peak. If I get ambitious, I'll grab the raw data and
expand just that section. It kinda looks like temp rise precedes CO2
again, but I can't be sure on such a wide scale.

(skipping down....)

Fundamentally, the way I see it is like this:

* If we spend a few Bucks today to mitigate CO2 emissions, we may be able to
avert the 95% probability of disaster.

According to the trend lines, we should now be heading into another
ice age. If true and we reduce CO2 emissions, my guess is that we'll
create our own disaster.

* If we don't spend the money today, then it is highly probable (95%
certainty) that the cost will escalate with each passing year, to a point
where we will be unable to fund mitigation.

True. By limiting the shrinking list of acceptable solutions, only
the most expensive CO2 reduction schemes will be left. For example,
extensive expansion of nuclear power is becoming increasingly
expensive due primarily to government oversight.

* If the scientists are wrong and we spend a few Bucks now, then it's cost
us some money.

"Few" bucks? I can't think of any C02 reduction scheme that is cheap.
Switching to CFL and LED lighting might be cost effective because the
cost is spread over maybe 50 years. Same with hybrid vehicles.
However, large scale reductions in CO2 reduction, such as eliminating
coal generated electricity, has huge associated costs.

* If the scientists are right and we don't spend the money, our civilisation
will not likely survive.

Apocalyptic predictions of the demise of civilization have
traditionally accompanied such changes. I recall reading one from the
ancient Greeks. While the risks of inaction are high, the probability
of disaster is quite low. Like the predictions of a Y2K disaster, the
modern alarmists have their limitation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eschatology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypse

Make no mistake: I did not say that humans will be wiped out. Many will
survive. Anarchy is loking like a real probability.

Well, since we're doing a disaster movie here, I suggest you do a back
of the envelope calculation. If we assume that the energy consumption
and greenhouse gas production per person remains constant at today's
western world levels, what would the population of the planet need to
be in order to produce a greenhouse gas stable environment? I think
you might be amused by the result.

Incidentally, I just bought an EcoSmart LED lamp for $10 at Home
Depot. 40 watt equivalent, 9 watts consumption, 429 lumens, 3000K, 46
year life. Works with my light dimmer. The color accuracy 85 is not
very good.
http://www.homedepot.com/buy/lighting-fans/light-bulbs/ecosmart/led-a19-40-watt-equivalent-light-bulb-39632.html
Prices seem to be getting down to reasonable. One nice feature is
that the plastic "bulb" and aluminum base look sufficiently strong to
survive being dropped, something that CFL bulbs can't do.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

keithr wrote:
On 30/09/2011 7:27 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
keithr wrote:
On 29/09/2011 1:17 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
Arfa Daily wrote:
snip


**Nope. I accept that when all the planet's climatologists warn
of a problem that they are likely to be correct.


All ?

**Near enough. 97% is as close to consensus as it gets. If 97
doctors told you that if you did not alter your diet, you would get
a heart attack and 3 doctors told you not to alter your diet,
because you'd be fine, what would you do?

Heres one with a fair amount of credibility who puts up a reasonable
theory contra to that put up by the IPCC. Whether he is right or
wrong is way beyond the capability of anybody here to decide, but
at least he is approaching the subject from a reasoned scientific
perspective not the screaming political one that most seem to
favour. Global warming is a fact, the only argument is whether it is
natural
and we cannot do anything about it or it is caused by man made
conditions that we can control.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/research...ural-response/

**Whilst not proof that Spencer is wrong about climate science, it is
important to realise that Spencer is a strong proponent of
'Intelligent Design', rather than evolution as an explanation for
the way that species have become diverse on this planet. A religious
viewpoint such at Spencer's places him in rather a poor light
straight off. Spencer is a believer in the supernatural. Not only
that, but he is very active in groups that support the notion of a
supernatural explanation of how things occur on this planet. Sad.

Roy Spencer is (partly) paid by the Heartland Institute. The
Heartland Institute is funded by Philip Morris (big tobacco), Olin
Foundation (the gun lobby) and Exxon (big oil). His views are hardly
surprising, given his employer/s.

Here are some claims made by Spencer, along with some criticisms of
Spencer's supernatural ideas:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/clou...e-feedback.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Drop...rming-bias.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc...-consensus.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/few-...al-warming.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/loeh...year-cycle.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/roy-...ensitivity.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/sate...roposphere.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-cl...nsitivity.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-...er-Part-1.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-...er-Part-2.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-...er-Part-3.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/spen...-feedback.html

It is good that you've taken the time to read about the AGW issue. I
trust that you will also take the time to read the science, from
real scientists, who do not place their faith in the supernatural,
nor take their money from big oil. This is an excellent place to
start: www.ipcc.ch

The question is whether you have read his arguments or just the
refutations that others have written about them.

**Yes. I've been reading Spencer's stuff for several years. On the surface,
much sounds plausible. His arguments have some serious holes in them,
however.

What do you think about Spencer's supernatural beliefs? Does that cause you
to consider his statements with a more critical eye? What do you think of
Spencer's affiliations (with the fossil fuel industry)? Does that cause you
to consider his statements with a more critical eye?
Have you looked at the cites I provided?
Have you read IPCC AR4?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 09:37:29 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

Incidentally, I just bought an EcoSmart LED lamp for $10 at Home
Depot. 40 watt equivalent, 9 watts consumption, 429 lumens, 3000K, 46
year life. Works with my light dimmer. The color accuracy 85 is not
very good.
http://www.homedepot.com/buy/lighting-fans/light-bulbs/ecosmart/led-a19-40-watt-equivalent-light-bulb-39632.html

Argh. Not so wonderful:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/EcoSmart%209%20Watt%20LED.jpg

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Jeffrey Angus wrote:
On 9/30/2011 7:08 AM, kreed wrote:
Thats because it isnt a corporation, with real money, media and power
behind it. If it was, he would believe anything they told him

Sounds like Scientology would be the perfect fit then.

**Scientolgy was set up as a tax dodge by a 2nd rate science fiction writer.
It relies on the same ignorance damanded by the Catholics, the Muslims, the
Jews and all the other religions. Scientology actively seeks to isolate it's
adherents from normal society. This is a stanadrd ploy by religious and
quasi-religious sects. Like every other religion, Scientology needs to be:

* Taxed.
* Subjected to the normal consumer regulations that surround any other
product or service.

That should sort them out.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

On 9/30/2011 5:17 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
**Scientolgy was set up as a tax dodge by a 2nd rate science fiction writer.
It relies on the same ignorance damanded by the Catholics, the Muslims, the
Jews and all the other religions. Scientology actively seeks to isolate it's
adherents from normal society.

How ironic.
They also propagate an unending stream of unsupported information
claiming them to be facts.

Jeff

--
"Everything from Crackers to Coffins"

www.rageaudio.com.au



You're not by any chance a JW as well, are you Trevor ... ? :-)

**I am not well regarded by Jehovah's Witness', nor by Mormans. When
religious nutters turn up on my doorstep to push their peculiar religion
down my throat,

Hmmmm ...



I feel zero compuction in stting them down, offering them a
cup of tea and then proceding to lecture them on science and the
nonsensical nature of supernatural beliefs. Most hurridly excuse
themselves and make their escape.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

On 1/10/2011 7:20 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
keithr wrote:
On 30/09/2011 7:27 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
keithr wrote:
On 29/09/2011 1:17 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
Arfa Daily wrote:
snip


**Nope. I accept that when all the planet's climatologists warn
of a problem that they are likely to be correct.


All ?

**Near enough. 97% is as close to consensus as it gets. If 97
doctors told you that if you did not alter your diet, you would get
a heart attack and 3 doctors told you not to alter your diet,
because you'd be fine, what would you do?

Heres one with a fair amount of credibility who puts up a reasonable
theory contra to that put up by the IPCC. Whether he is right or
wrong is way beyond the capability of anybody here to decide, but
at least he is approaching the subject from a reasoned scientific
perspective not the screaming political one that most seem to
favour. Global warming is a fact, the only argument is whether it is
natural
and we cannot do anything about it or it is caused by man made
conditions that we can control.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/research...ural-response/

**Whilst not proof that Spencer is wrong about climate science, it is
important to realise that Spencer is a strong proponent of
'Intelligent Design', rather than evolution as an explanation for
the way that species have become diverse on this planet. A religious
viewpoint such at Spencer's places him in rather a poor light
straight off. Spencer is a believer in the supernatural. Not only
that, but he is very active in groups that support the notion of a
supernatural explanation of how things occur on this planet. Sad.

Roy Spencer is (partly) paid by the Heartland Institute. The
Heartland Institute is funded by Philip Morris (big tobacco), Olin
Foundation (the gun lobby) and Exxon (big oil). His views are hardly
surprising, given his employer/s.

Here are some claims made by Spencer, along with some criticisms of
Spencer's supernatural ideas:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/clou...e-feedback.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Drop...rming-bias.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc...-consensus.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/few-...al-warming.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/loeh...year-cycle.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/roy-...ensitivity.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/sate...roposphere.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-cl...nsitivity.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-...er-Part-1.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-...er-Part-2.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-...er-Part-3.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/spen...-feedback.html

It is good that you've taken the time to read about the AGW issue. I
trust that you will also take the time to read the science, from
real scientists, who do not place their faith in the supernatural,
nor take their money from big oil. This is an excellent place to
start: www.ipcc.ch

The question is whether you have read his arguments or just the
refutations that others have written about them.

**Yes. I've been reading Spencer's stuff for several years. On the surface,
much sounds plausible. His arguments have some serious holes in them,
however.

What do you think about Spencer's supernatural beliefs? Does that cause you
to consider his statements with a more critical eye?

Nope, I couldn't care less about his religious views, neither do I care
in the least about the religious views of the members of the IPCC.

What do you think of
Spencer's affiliations (with the fossil fuel industry)? Does that cause you
to consider his statements with a more critical eye?

Spencer's own words:-

"Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government
agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil
company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil."

Do you have any cites to prove him a liar?

Have you looked at the cites I provided?

Yes, it worries me that they start out from the point of view that he is
wrong, and then go looking for evidence to support that. That is not the
scientific method.

Have you read IPCC AR4?

Some of it, unfortunately, I am not in a position to confirm or dispute
their modelling, but I am by nature suspicious of the results of
computer modelling, basically it tends to be high speed guessing. The
problem is extremely complex and all attempts to model climate have been
gross simplifications. Even the models to predict tomorrows weather
rarely agree with each other.

I have an open mind on the subject (which probably puts me in a minority
of one) global warming is without doubt, but the cause is very much
open to question.

On 1/10/2011 2:37 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 07:24:52 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 14:24:35 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

* Clear, unequivocal evidence that the planet is warming at a faster
rate at any time in the last 600,000 years.

Ahem...
http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/All_Comp.png

**Er, 1978 ~ 2010 is not 600,000 years. Not even close. However, this graph
may provide a little more information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg

Not quite 600,000 years, but considerably more than 30.

I don't have a huge amount of time to take apart the graphs. So, I
selected just the one above. The first thing I noticed is that there
are no vertical grid lines, making it difficult to determine whether a
CO2 peak caused warming, or whether it was the other way around. So,
dragging out GIMP photo editor, I added vertical grid lines. I also
reversed the graph so that time goes from left to right. Today is on
the right.

http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/Vostok_Petit_data_03.jpg

Note the circled peaks. Note that the temperature peak precedes the
CO2 rise in all 3 visible peaks. I'm not quite sure what to do about
the most recent peak. If I get ambitious, I'll grab the raw data and
expand just that section. It kinda looks like temp rise precedes CO2
again, but I can't be sure on such a wide scale.

(skipping down....)

Fundamentally, the way I see it is like this:

* If we spend a few Bucks today to mitigate CO2 emissions, we may be able to
avert the 95% probability of disaster.

According to the trend lines, we should now be heading into another
ice age. If true and we reduce CO2 emissions, my guess is that we'll
create our own disaster.

* If we don't spend the money today, then it is highly probable (95%
certainty) that the cost will escalate with each passing year, to a point
where we will be unable to fund mitigation.

True. By limiting the shrinking list of acceptable solutions, only
the most expensive CO2 reduction schemes will be left. For example,
extensive expansion of nuclear power is becoming increasingly
expensive due primarily to government oversight.

* If the scientists are wrong and we spend a few Bucks now, then it's cost
us some money.

"Few" bucks? I can't think of any C02 reduction scheme that is cheap.
Switching to CFL and LED lighting might be cost effective because the
cost is spread over maybe 50 years. Same with hybrid vehicles.
However, large scale reductions in CO2 reduction, such as eliminating
coal generated electricity, has huge associated costs.

* If the scientists are right and we don't spend the money, our civilisation
will not likely survive.

Apocalyptic predictions of the demise of civilization have
traditionally accompanied such changes. I recall reading one from the
ancient Greeks. While the risks of inaction are high, the probability
of disaster is quite low. Like the predictions of a Y2K disaster, the
modern alarmists have their limitation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eschatology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypse

Make no mistake: I did not say that humans will be wiped out. Many will
survive. Anarchy is loking like a real probability.

Well, since we're doing a disaster movie here, I suggest you do a back
of the envelope calculation. If we assume that the energy consumption
and greenhouse gas production per person remains constant at today's
western world levels, what would the population of the planet need to
be in order to produce a greenhouse gas stable environment? I think
you might be amused by the result.

Incidentally, I just bought an EcoSmart LED lamp for $10 at Home
Depot. 40 watt equivalent, 9 watts consumption, 429 lumens, 3000K, 46
year life. Works with my light dimmer. The color accuracy 85 is not
very good.
http://www.homedepot.com/buy/lighting-fans/light-bulbs/ecosmart/led-a19-40-watt-equivalent-light-bulb-39632.html
Prices seem to be getting down to reasonable. One nice feature is
that the plastic "bulb" and aluminum base look sufficiently strong to
survive being dropped, something that CFL bulbs can't do.

Lets face it guys, there is nobody around here, myself included, who has
the mental horsepower to make a serious and realistic contribution to
the body of knowledge about global warming. Mostly it is reiteration of
set views using what ever data that has been provided by others and
which coincides with those set views of the writer. In the end nothing
changes, we still have the same people with the same views.

The debate though will have been useful if it leads to a lesser use of
fossil fuel to convert to energy. It is an inefficient process and there
ain't an infinite supply of the stuff.

keithr wrote:
On 1/10/2011 7:20 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
keithr wrote:
On 30/09/2011 7:27 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
keithr wrote:
On 29/09/2011 1:17 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
Arfa Daily wrote:
snip


**Nope. I accept that when all the planet's climatologists warn
of a problem that they are likely to be correct.


All ?

**Near enough. 97% is as close to consensus as it gets. If 97
doctors told you that if you did not alter your diet, you would
get a heart attack and 3 doctors told you not to alter your diet,
because you'd be fine, what would you do?

Heres one with a fair amount of credibility who puts up a
reasonable theory contra to that put up by the IPCC. Whether he
is right or wrong is way beyond the capability of anybody here to
decide, but at least he is approaching the subject from a
reasoned scientific perspective not the screaming political one
that most seem to favour. Global warming is a fact, the only
argument is whether it is natural
and we cannot do anything about it or it is caused by man made
conditions that we can control.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/research...ural-response/

**Whilst not proof that Spencer is wrong about climate science, it
is important to realise that Spencer is a strong proponent of
'Intelligent Design', rather than evolution as an explanation for
the way that species have become diverse on this planet. A
religious viewpoint such at Spencer's places him in rather a poor
light straight off. Spencer is a believer in the supernatural. Not
only that, but he is very active in groups that support the notion
of a supernatural explanation of how things occur on this planet.
Sad. Roy Spencer is (partly) paid by the Heartland Institute. The
Heartland Institute is funded by Philip Morris (big tobacco), Olin
Foundation (the gun lobby) and Exxon (big oil). His views are
hardly surprising, given his employer/s.

Here are some claims made by Spencer, along with some criticisms of
Spencer's supernatural ideas:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/clou...e-feedback.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Drop...rming-bias.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc...-consensus.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/few-...al-warming.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/loeh...year-cycle.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/roy-...ensitivity.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/sate...roposphere.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-cl...nsitivity.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-...er-Part-1.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-...er-Part-2.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-...er-Part-3.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/spen...-feedback.html

It is good that you've taken the time to read about the AGW issue.
I trust that you will also take the time to read the science, from
real scientists, who do not place their faith in the supernatural,
nor take their money from big oil. This is an excellent place to
start: www.ipcc.ch

The question is whether you have read his arguments or just the
refutations that others have written about them.

**Yes. I've been reading Spencer's stuff for several years. On the
surface, much sounds plausible. His arguments have some serious
holes in them, however.

What do you think about Spencer's supernatural beliefs? Does that
cause you to consider his statements with a more critical eye?

Nope, I couldn't care less about his religious views, neither do I
care in the least about the religious views of the members of the
IPCC.

**A person that holds 'Intelligent Design' as some kind of rational view is
seriously suspect. In fact, I would be concerned about any person, that
claims to be a scientist, who hold any kind of supernatural beliefs.

Spencer is part of this organisation:

http://www.cornwallalliance.org/about/

Here is part of their platform:

http://www.cornwallalliance.org/arti...lobal-warming/

An excerpt:

1.. We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent
design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are
robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited
for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is
no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming
and cooling in geologic history.
2.. We believe abundant, affordable energy is indispensable to human
flourishing, particularly to societies which are rising out of abject
poverty and the high rates of disease and premature death that accompany it.
With present technologies, fossil and nuclear fuels are indispensable if
energy is to be abundant and affordable.
3.. We believe mandatory reductions in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse
gas emissions, achievable mainly by greatly reduced use of fossil fuels,
will greatly increase the price of energy and harm economies.
4.. We believe such policies will harm the poor more than others because
the poor spend a higher percentage of their income on energy and desperately
need economic growth to rise out of poverty and overcome its miseries.
Disturbing stuff. Spencer is listed as a prominent signer:

http://www.cornwallalliance.org/blog...lobal-warming/

It seems clear that Spencer STARTS from a theological POV and moulds his
science to fit that view. Are you certain you want to get on this idiot's
train of thought?


What do you think of
Spencer's affiliations (with the fossil fuel industry)? Does that
cause you to consider his statements with a more critical eye?

Spencer's own words:-

"Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government
agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil
company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil."

Do you have any cites to prove him a liar?

**Certainly, but it gets very messy. Probably easier to refer you to the
organisation that has unravelled the paper trail:

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/0...wall-alliance/

And he

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/1...limate-change/

And:

http://thinkprogress.org/green/2010/...ce-frontgroup/

And, of course, here is where he has worked for the Heartland Institute:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna...Climate_Change

The Heartland Institute is a 'front' for big tobacco and big oil (along with
big guns):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartland_Institute

In short, Spencer is a religious nutter, who is (partly) paid by big oil.


Have you looked at the cites I provided?

Yes, it worries me that they start out from the point of view that he
is wrong, and then go looking for evidence to support that.

**No, I do not. Spencer is a religious fruit-cake. ANYTHING he says must be
viewed with deep suspicion.

That is
not the scientific method.

**Indeed. Which is why I supplied a number of cites that criticise Spencer's
claims. Did you look at them?


Have you read IPCC AR4?

Some of it, unfortunately, I am not in a position to confirm or
dispute their modelling,

**This present discussion is not specifically about the modelling. It's
about the fact that AGW is occuring. IOW: We only need look at the
historical data.

but I am by nature suspicious of the results
of computer modelling, basically it tends to be high speed guessing.

**Indeed. And the modelling of climate is improving all the time.

The problem is extremely complex and all attempts to model climate
have been gross simplifications. Even the models to predict tomorrows
weather rarely agree with each other.

**Bull****. The BoM has a very impressive success rate with determining
weather over a 24 hour period. It is less successful over 48 hours and even
less so over 72 hours and so on. However, we are not discussing weather.
We're discussing climate. BIG difference.


I have an open mind on the subject (which probably puts me in a
minority of one) global warming is without doubt, but the cause is very
much open to question.

**Well, no, it is not "Very much open to question". There is a small amont
of doubt about why it is occuring. Around 5% at present.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 14:19:29 +1000, keithr
wrote:

Lets face it guys, there is nobody around here, myself included, who has
the mental horsepower to make a serious and realistic contribution to
the body of knowledge about global warming. Mostly it is reiteration of
set views using what ever data that has been provided by others and
which coincides with those set views of the writer. In the end nothing
changes, we still have the same people with the same views.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do
nothing." Edmund Burke (1729-1797)

There's more to global warming than just contributing to the body of
knowledge. There's the feedback, review, and criticism necessary to
validate the original research. There's also a substantial amount of
interpretation necessary to make full use of the body of knowledge.
Just knowing the "facts" is insufficient. One also had to know what
the fact really mean, and to do next.

As for lacking the mental horsepower necessary to contribute, please
note that during this discussion, I added one trivial item to the body
of knowledge by demonstrating how easy it is to tweak trend lines. I
also demonstrated the global warming precedes CO2 rise, using a graph
that was apparently intended to demonstrate the reverse.

I doubt if we'll ever be able to generate a fact based determination
on AGW. There's far too much polarization, politics and emotion
involved. At best, we will have a consensus, based on whichever side
hires the best PR agency, and possibly which future natural disaster
is successfully blamed on AGW. It makes me ill to think about it, but
that's probably the way it will work.

If you find it frustrating, I can sympathize. There is enough
distorted data and odd conclusions being tossed around that it's
difficult to form a supportable opinion. You're welcome to give up
now, and let the rest of us run your future. Various PAC's will
gladly supply you with a prepared sample ballot to save you the effort
of forming an opinion. A horde of elected representatives will gladly
tell you what to do, rather than attempt to represent your position
(especially if you have none). However, methinks the AGW issue is
sufficiently important and potentially expensive, that giving up now
might be a little premature.


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 07:24:52 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 14:24:35 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

* Clear, unequivocal evidence that the planet is warming at a
faster rate at any time in the last 600,000 years.

Ahem...
http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/All_Comp.png

**Er, 1978 ~ 2010 is not 600,000 years. Not even close. However,
this graph may provide a little more information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg

Not quite 600,000 years, but considerably more than 30.

I don't have a huge amount of time to take apart the graphs. So, I
selected just the one above. The first thing I noticed is that there
are no vertical grid lines, making it difficult to determine whether a
CO2 peak caused warming, or whether it was the other way around. So,
dragging out GIMP photo editor, I added vertical grid lines. I also
reversed the graph so that time goes from left to right. Today is on
the right.

http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/Vostok_Petit_data_03.jpg

Note the circled peaks. Note that the temperature peak precedes the
CO2 rise in all 3 visible peaks. I'm not quite sure what to do about
the most recent peak. If I get ambitious, I'll grab the raw data and
expand just that section. It kinda looks like temp rise precedes CO2
again, but I can't be sure on such a wide scale.

**I've studied the graphs in some considerable detail over the years and
have noted that CO2 rise sometimes precedes temperature rise and sometimes
it lags. This fits in well with current theory on how temperature changes
have occured in the past. Not all have been caused by CO2 rise. The most
important factor to note, however, is that CO2 levels and temperature levels
track each other very closely. When one goes up, the other does too.


(skipping down....)

Fundamentally, the way I see it is like this:

* If we spend a few Bucks today to mitigate CO2 emissions, we may be
able to avert the 95% probability of disaster.

According to the trend lines, we should now be heading into another
ice age.

**We SHOULD have entered an ice age quite a long time ago. But we didn't.
The temperature of the planet is rising. Our production of CO2 has prevented
the ice age from occuring.

If true and we reduce CO2 emissions, my guess is that we'll
create our own disaster.

**There's the rub: If we reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (by some
means, not specified), then we may precipitate an ice age. However, reducing
the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is an extremely unlikely possibility.
The VERY BEST we can hope for is to reduce emissions to zero. If we do that,
then CO2 levels would stabilise at the present level. That ain't gonna
happen. The most likely scenario is that CO2 levels will continue rising at
a faster rate than at any time in the last several hundred thousand years.
Temperatures are likely to follow (with 95% certainty).


* If we don't spend the money today, then it is highly probable (95%
certainty) that the cost will escalate with each passing year, to a
point where we will be unable to fund mitigation.

True. By limiting the shrinking list of acceptable solutions, only
the most expensive CO2 reduction schemes will be left. For example,
extensive expansion of nuclear power is becoming increasingly
expensive due primarily to government oversight.

**That is a political issue. I'm discussing science.


* If the scientists are wrong and we spend a few Bucks now, then
it's cost us some money.

"Few" bucks?

**Yeah. A few Bucks. Here is a reasonably comprehensive analysis of the
costs of action and the potential costs of inaction.

I can't think of any C02 reduction scheme that is cheap.
Switching to CFL and LED lighting might be cost effective because the
cost is spread over maybe 50 years. Same with hybrid vehicles.
However, large scale reductions in CO2 reduction, such as eliminating
coal generated electricity, has huge associated costs.

**That would depend on what you consider to be "huge". I consider that a
temperature rise of (say) 6 degrees C (which is possible under some of the
more pessimistic estimates) is of far more concern than a (say) doubling of
electricity costs today.


* If the scientists are right and we don't spend the money, our
civilisation will not likely survive.

Apocalyptic predictions of the demise of civilization have
traditionally accompanied such changes. I recall reading one from the
ancient Greeks. While the risks of inaction are high, the probability
of disaster is quite low. Like the predictions of a Y2K disaster, the
modern alarmists have their limitation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eschatology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypse

**You're mixing up religion with science. The science that has been
presented is just that - science. It is based on many thousands of man-hours
of investigation and a great many of measurements. It is not wild
speculation. I leave that to guys like Roy Spencer.


Make no mistake: I did not say that humans will be wiped out. Many
will survive. Anarchy is loking like a real probability.

Well, since we're doing a disaster movie here, I suggest you do a back
of the envelope calculation. If we assume that the energy consumption
and greenhouse gas production per person remains constant at today's
western world levels, what would the population of the planet need to
be in order to produce a greenhouse gas stable environment? I think
you might be amused by the result.

**Not at all. 500 million is my best guess. I've said it in the past and
that is the figure I'll stick with.


Incidentally, I just bought an EcoSmart LED lamp for $10 at Home
Depot. 40 watt equivalent, 9 watts consumption, 429 lumens, 3000K, 46
year life. Works with my light dimmer. The color accuracy 85 is not
very good.
http://www.homedepot.com/buy/lighting-fans/light-bulbs/ecosmart/led-a19-40-watt-equivalent-light-bulb-39632.html
Prices seem to be getting down to reasonable. One nice feature is
that the plastic "bulb" and aluminum base look sufficiently strong to
survive being dropped, something that CFL bulbs can't do.

**I'll post some pics of my latest find a bit later. They are amongst the
most impressive LED arrays I've ever used:

http://www.dealextreme.com/p/12w-350...p-12-14v-80310

Almost double the light output, compared to an 11 Watt, T5 fluoro.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"keithr" wrote in message
...
On 1/10/2011 7:20 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
keithr wrote:
On 30/09/2011 7:27 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
keithr wrote:
On 29/09/2011 1:17 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
Arfa Daily wrote:
snip


**Nope. I accept that when all the planet's climatologists warn
of a problem that they are likely to be correct.


All ?

**Near enough. 97% is as close to consensus as it gets. If 97
doctors told you that if you did not alter your diet, you would get
a heart attack and 3 doctors told you not to alter your diet,
because you'd be fine, what would you do?

Heres one with a fair amount of credibility who puts up a reasonable
theory contra to that put up by the IPCC. Whether he is right or
wrong is way beyond the capability of anybody here to decide, but
at least he is approaching the subject from a reasoned scientific
perspective not the screaming political one that most seem to
favour. Global warming is a fact, the only argument is whether it is
natural
and we cannot do anything about it or it is caused by man made
conditions that we can control.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/research...ural-response/

**Whilst not proof that Spencer is wrong about climate science, it is
important to realise that Spencer is a strong proponent of
'Intelligent Design', rather than evolution as an explanation for
the way that species have become diverse on this planet. A religious
viewpoint such at Spencer's places him in rather a poor light
straight off. Spencer is a believer in the supernatural. Not only
that, but he is very active in groups that support the notion of a
supernatural explanation of how things occur on this planet. Sad.

Roy Spencer is (partly) paid by the Heartland Institute. The
Heartland Institute is funded by Philip Morris (big tobacco), Olin
Foundation (the gun lobby) and Exxon (big oil). His views are hardly
surprising, given his employer/s.

Here are some claims made by Spencer, along with some criticisms of
Spencer's supernatural ideas:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/clou...e-feedback.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Drop...rming-bias.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc...-consensus.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/few-...al-warming.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/loeh...year-cycle.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/roy-...ensitivity.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/sate...roposphere.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-cl...nsitivity.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-...er-Part-1.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-...er-Part-2.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-...er-Part-3.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/spen...-feedback.html

It is good that you've taken the time to read about the AGW issue. I
trust that you will also take the time to read the science, from
real scientists, who do not place their faith in the supernatural,
nor take their money from big oil. This is an excellent place to
start: www.ipcc.ch

The question is whether you have read his arguments or just the
refutations that others have written about them.

**Yes. I've been reading Spencer's stuff for several years. On the
surface,
much sounds plausible. His arguments have some serious holes in them,
however.

What do you think about Spencer's supernatural beliefs? Does that cause
you
to consider his statements with a more critical eye?

Nope, I couldn't care less about his religious views, neither do I care in
the least about the religious views of the members of the IPCC.

What do you think of
Spencer's affiliations (with the fossil fuel industry)? Does that cause
you
to consider his statements with a more critical eye?

Spencer's own words:-

"Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government
agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company
to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil."

Do you have any cites to prove him a liar?

Have you looked at the cites I provided?

Yes, it worries me that they start out from the point of view that he is
wrong, and then go looking for evidence to support that. That is not the
scientific method.

Have you read IPCC AR4?

Some of it, unfortunately, I am not in a position to confirm or dispute
their modelling, but I am by nature suspicious of the results of computer
modelling, basically it tends to be high speed guessing. The problem is
extremely complex and all attempts to model climate have been gross
simplifications. Even the models to predict tomorrows weather rarely agree
with each other.

I have an open mind on the subject (which probably puts me in a minority
of one) global warming is without doubt, but the cause is very much open
to question.



Well, a majority of several on here, it would seem. You could at least add
me to that sentiment, so that's two of us ... :-)

Arfa

On Sat, 1 Oct 2011 17:30:35 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 07:24:52 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 14:24:35 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

* Clear, unequivocal evidence that the planet is warming at a
faster rate at any time in the last 600,000 years.

Ahem...
http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/All_Comp.png

**Er, 1978 ~ 2010 is not 600,000 years. Not even close. However,
this graph may provide a little more information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg

Not quite 600,000 years, but considerably more than 30.

I don't have a huge amount of time to take apart the graphs. So, I
selected just the one above. The first thing I noticed is that there
are no vertical grid lines, making it difficult to determine whether a
CO2 peak caused warming, or whether it was the other way around. So,
dragging out GIMP photo editor, I added vertical grid lines. I also
reversed the graph so that time goes from left to right. Today is on
the right.

http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/Vostok_Petit_data_03.jpg

Note the circled peaks. Note that the temperature peak precedes the
CO2 rise in all 3 visible peaks. I'm not quite sure what to do about
the most recent peak. If I get ambitious, I'll grab the raw data and
expand just that section. It kinda looks like temp rise precedes CO2
again, but I can't be sure on such a wide scale.

**I've studied the graphs in some considerable detail over the years and
have noted that CO2 rise sometimes precedes temperature rise and sometimes
it lags. This fits in well with current theory on how temperature changes
have occured in the past. Not all have been caused by CO2 rise. The most
important factor to note, however, is that CO2 levels and temperature levels
track each other very closely. When one goes up, the other does too.

Except for two very important things: 1) correlation is NOT causation. 2)
effect cannot precede cause. The graph is very clear on temperature
change preceding CO2 levels generally.


(skipping down....)

Fundamentally, the way I see it is like this:

* If we spend a few Bucks today to mitigate CO2 emissions, we may be
able to avert the 95% probability of disaster.

According to the trend lines, we should now be heading into another
ice age.

**We SHOULD have entered an ice age quite a long time ago. But we didn't.
The temperature of the planet is rising. Our production of CO2 has prevented
the ice age from occuring.

If true and we reduce CO2 emissions, my guess is that we'll
create our own disaster.

**There's the rub: If we reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (by some
means, not specified), then we may precipitate an ice age. However, reducing
the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is an extremely unlikely possibility.
The VERY BEST we can hope for is to reduce emissions to zero. If we do that,
then CO2 levels would stabilise at the present level. That ain't gonna
happen. The most likely scenario is that CO2 levels will continue rising at
a faster rate than at any time in the last several hundred thousand years.
Temperatures are likely to follow (with 95% certainty).


* If we don't spend the money today, then it is highly probable (95%
certainty) that the cost will escalate with each passing year, to a
point where we will be unable to fund mitigation.

True. By limiting the shrinking list of acceptable solutions, only
the most expensive CO2 reduction schemes will be left. For example,
extensive expansion of nuclear power is becoming increasingly
expensive due primarily to government oversight.

**That is a political issue. I'm discussing science.

No, you are not. Effect does not precede cause. You are an indoctrinated
political follower.


* If the scientists are wrong and we spend a few Bucks now, then
it's cost us some money.

"Few" bucks?

**Yeah. A few Bucks. Here is a reasonably comprehensive analysis of the
costs of action and the potential costs of inaction.

I can't think of any C02 reduction scheme that is cheap.
Switching to CFL and LED lighting might be cost effective because the
cost is spread over maybe 50 years. Same with hybrid vehicles.
However, large scale reductions in CO2 reduction, such as eliminating
coal generated electricity, has huge associated costs.

**That would depend on what you consider to be "huge". I consider that a
temperature rise of (say) 6 degrees C (which is possible under some of the
more pessimistic estimates) is of far more concern than a (say) doubling of
electricity costs today.

And i see it quite the reverse. Nor do i believe that the Greenland ice
sheet will all melt away and cause a calamitous ocean level rise (as
depicted is some apocalyptic projections).


* If the scientists are right and we don't spend the money, our
civilisation will not likely survive.

Apocalyptic predictions of the demise of civilization have
traditionally accompanied such changes. I recall reading one from the
ancient Greeks. While the risks of inaction are high, the probability
of disaster is quite low. Like the predictions of a Y2K disaster, the
modern alarmists have their limitation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eschatology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypse

**You're mixing up religion with science. The science that has been
presented is just that - science. It is based on many thousands of man-hours
of investigation and a great many of measurements. It is not wild
speculation. I leave that to guys like Roy Spencer.

Effect does not precede cause.


Make no mistake: I did not say that humans will be wiped out. Many
will survive. Anarchy is loking like a real probability.

Well, since we're doing a disaster movie here, I suggest you do a back
of the envelope calculation. If we assume that the energy consumption
and greenhouse gas production per person remains constant at today's
western world levels, what would the population of the planet need to
be in order to produce a greenhouse gas stable environment? I think
you might be amused by the result.

**Not at all. 500 million is my best guess. I've said it in the past and
that is the figure I'll stick with.

I don't actually find that number unreasonable. Though i am looking a lot
more factors.


Incidentally, I just bought an EcoSmart LED lamp for $10 at Home
Depot. 40 watt equivalent, 9 watts consumption, 429 lumens, 3000K, 46
year life. Works with my light dimmer. The color accuracy 85 is not
very good.
http://www.homedepot.com/buy/lighting-fans/light-bulbs/ecosmart/led-a19-40-watt-equivalent-light-bulb-39632.html
Prices seem to be getting down to reasonable. One nice feature is
that the plastic "bulb" and aluminum base look sufficiently strong to
survive being dropped, something that CFL bulbs can't do.

**I'll post some pics of my latest find a bit later. They are amongst the
most impressive LED arrays I've ever used:

http://www.dealextreme.com/p/12w-350...p-12-14v-80310

Almost double the light output, compared to an 11 Watt, T5 fluoro.