**No, it won't. It will, like a good scientific document, ADVISE on appropriate course/s of action. They are not likely to be pleasant and will be resisted by the Murdock media and the fossil fuel industry. There is certainly no doubt that many nations will be dragging their feet on the way to reduce CO2 emissions.
Will our society survive? I doubt it. It seems more likely that action will be too little too late.
-- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
True. Climate researchers don't run the government or run for office. Politicians tend to pick whatever helps them win:
Also true. However, the AGW deniers do serve a vital function. If everyone agrees with the IPCC consensus, there would be no need for a
5th report, no need to fund research, and no need to debate the issues. Without opposition, the IPCC would probably be disolved.Of course. When in doubt, do nothing. That may sound awful, but it has served mankind quite well since we climbed out of the trees. If we were more impulsive, we would probably be extinct by now. Evolution sometimes rewards aggressive action. Human society does not.
As opposed to too much too early? That seems to be the real problem. I don't think there's any serious opposition to the observation that the global climate is changing. It has changed before and will certainly do so again. The real questions are is it caused by human activity and can we do anything about it? The options are not very appealing. Leave things as they are, and civilization comes to an end. Drastically downsize the population with a corresponding reduction in greenhouse gas production, and it's almost as likely that we would also put an end to civilization, at least as we know it today. Since genocide and enforced austerity are not popular concepts, the compromise is to do nothing, which we are now doing quite nicely.
Drivel: I used to work for a boss who's motto was "Do something, even if it's wrong". He ended his career by doing something really wrong, instead of thinking it out in advance. Hopefully, we won't make the same mistake with AGW.
-- Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
**The nice thing about reducing CO2 emissions, is that there is no serious downside. It's only about the money and where it is spent. If all the climate scientists are correct and we fail to act, then the costs may exceed the ability of the population of this planet to pay.
-- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
No downside? What about the economic downside? If we went on a major global greenhouse gas reduction program, fossil fuel based transportation would come to an end, many inherently inefficient industries (e.g. aluminum) would be effectively banned, and production of most everything made from processed petroleum (e.g. plastics, fertilizer) would be drastically reduced. I'm sure the IPCC has recognized this downside, which might explain their emphasis: "... on assessing the socio-economic aspects of climate change and implications for sustainable development, risk management and the framing of a response through both adaptation and mitigation." in the 5th report, which covers the topic and should include any downsides. Personally, I don't see any way to make it happen without nationalizing every industry that belches CO2, methane, or water vapor, and putting them all on a rather restrictive diet. Like I said, I can't wait to hear their expert advice on adaptation and mitigation without collateral damage. "The operation was a success, but the patient died" comes to mind.
-- Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
"Jeff Liebermann"
** Ever hear of Politician's Logic ??It goes like this:
A group of politicians is confronted with what looks like a serious problem.
They say to each other:
" This is just terrible - we must do SOMETHING "
Then a rather obvious suggestion is made and they all latch onto it saying:
" This is SOMETHING therefore we MUST do it !! "
... Phil
**I did say: "No serious downside". The estimated costs, right now, are not onerous. As we move foreward, those costs will increase. Possibly more importantly, there are some potential upsides for many new industries.
If we went on a major
**Which it exxentially will anyway. Oil is rapidly running out.many inherently inefficient
**Not at all. Aluminium smelting can utilise any electrical energy source. Nukes, geo-thermal, Solar, wind, tidal, whatever. And, just to press the point home, I did a little research a while back on the aluminium industry.The aluminium industry continually bleats about high costs. They don't menton the massive profits.
and production
**That would depend on the measures that are taken.I'm sure the IPCC has
**There will certainly be some serious downsides in any CO2 abatement programmes. The alternative is, however, utterly unthinkable.-- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
ll
ay
That is a very scientific observation. We should all embrace Trevor's crackpot theories based on just this.
ll
Our society will surive and thrive if we stop allowing ourselves to constantly being made to live in fear for the purposes of controlling us, throw this AGW crap and those involved in it straight in the bin, cut the big guys out of controlling everything (including both sides of our government and media) stop them from creating artificial shortages of resources in order to fleece us, and stop worrying about lies and lead productive lives.
Interesting. I excavated some US numbers on aluminum. Each page has about 5 years worth of annual costs. Sorry for the mess:
Price (not adjusted for inflation) US$ per lb
2010 1.214 2009 1.252 2008 1.205 2007 0.794 2006 1.017 2005 0.688 2004 0.649 2003 0.681 2002 0.840 2001 0.880 2000 0.771 1999 0.655 1998 0.657Looks to me like the price of aluminum doubled between 1998 and 2010 in the US. That's about right considering the increased cost of industrial electricity. However, it seems that the price in Australia went up by 4.2 times. Was there something that happened in Australia during this time period to produce this difference?
-- Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
**I do not espouse "crackpot theories". I merely read and understand the science. It is a great pity that you do not do likewise. **I note your continued avoidance of dealing with my previous questions and comments. I further note your dismissal of good, solid science, in preference for a religious, stick-your-head-in-the-sand approach. You, Tony Abbott, George Pell, Christopher Monckton and Alan Jones are a good match for each other. None of you deals with the science.
-- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
,
nd
ny
That is an extremely contradictory statement. You avoid the fact that you only quote paid off shills like the IPCC as factual, and as being "solid science" and regard anyone who disagrees with these "paid for" theories as being a religious nutter or being paid off by a particular industry, whereas the AGW movement is both of these times 1000.
Sadly a lot of science is corporate or government funded these days. These people are therefore owned, and both groups who own them want the power and money that AGW potentially put in their hands. The power to control resources that are vital such as coal and oil, ensure that they have a monopoly to extract usury prices for them, and also to ensure that only their own companies and sponsors have access to them cheaply in order to eliminate competition. (IE: GE has an exemption in Texas, and will be allowed to burn all the coal it wants, but its competitors won't, causing a monopoly to exist) This is litereally worth trillions and comes with a bonus of a high level of control of billions of humans. With this at stake, no one is going to let the facts get in the way of what is probably the biggest prize in human history. - but fortunately for us (except you) this is what has happened.
We are not talking scientists here, we are talking "pay for required results" people. Ones who probably could never get a job, or funding if they didnt get on the bandwagon and get the results they were told to get.
This is why your entire statement is so ridiculous to start with. Polls show that the vast majority of Australians (and other countries by the sound of it) have woken up to it, and it is about time too.
the "master race" and "eugenics" were "good solid science" in their day too. If you were a "scientist" and didn't agree with this good science agenda, you didnt have a career - therefore you didnt eat - or you didn't have a life. Ditto if you were in the media, or other industry that could report the truth, and blow these scams open.
Funny to look at the parallels now to this situation and the global warming industry.
and
nt
res
by
to
or
ey
to
re
ard
ng
in
ver
FLs
er'
ost see the
ve
iew
he
cal
med
trry
ais
dWhenever you hear any of these 'weasel words" as we call them, you know that the speaker or the forum is bought and has no credibility.
There are other weasel words too used here like "working families" "tackle" "planet" (except when used in the proper context - such as discussing a planet in legitimate science discussion), "nation building" "empowerment" "clean" (as in clean energy, clean feed AKA draconian internet censorship) etc.
Yes, these people get extremely angry and potentially violent when their lies are exposed to the world, and no one believes them anymore. Be very careful of them. Imagine all the money that has been spent cooking up the AGW scam, the "scientists" that had to be funded and coerced into coming up with the right results, the media, government to all go along with it, even in our case where our PM has bascially been totally destroyed by supporting this scam.
It was all working perfectly the goal of ultimate power and control was right there, ready to be grabbed, and thanks to the internet and common sense, the whole thing got dissolved by bright light of the truth.
The anger must be immense, and they are still walking around with the emperors new clothes on - wanting to "arrest deniers", "Tattoo deniers" (Australia), run adverts showing children being blown up in class for not believing in AGW - which if you or I tried it - we would be done for "making and possession of child abuse material" but of course, no one gets charged or jailed for it because of selective enforcement of laws, in what is rapidly becoming a lawless world.
wast
er
,at
,I'm
r den
th
t a
al
n's
hat
g.
e's
ry
d I
't
stand
no
sent
..
wer
ices
al
ne by
e to
nd
at
or
el
for
They
d to
were
loward
ming
t, in
tover
n .CFLs
e.
nier'
olmost see the
ieve
ll
view
the
rical
eamed
ept
carry
n a
nry is
and
y,
few
East
fter
s,
rt,
that
ed,
, I'm
e .ber
and
ureen
,to
eath
hat a
obal
se
s,
d.
man's
that
ing.
ome
an's
jury
and I
ng
on't
Also take a look at the Green Movement.
Note that like most evils, it always starts out with reasonable things, like don't throw rubbish everywhere, dont dump large quantities of toxic waste in streams, or land etc (especially where it gets back into your food or water supply). Fair enough, people say. Then over time things change
The entire core and philosophy of the modern Green movement is to sell to people to a totally non-negotiable blinding hate and loathing of yourself and humans generally, that "people are filth, a disease, have to be gotten rid of (Except for greenies and those in power of course who are totally exempt from this, they are allowed to drive large cars, fly everywhere, have large families, huge homes, and electricity usage etc - where you and I are absolute filth who shouldn't be allowed electricity, children, meat, or any resources).
Out of interest, I was pointed by another poster to a guy called "Alfred Adask" who discovered an interesting phrase in the drug enforcement laws - where the term "Man and other animals" is used. He used this successfuly as a defense to get a charge of producing nutritional supplements dropped. I would advise checking this out. Note the term "animals" - very convenient to remove someone's rights and possibly a reason why the government is so keen on pushing "evolution" (Note the implication - If you are evolved from animals - you are an animal yourself, have no rights, like cattle and are not a human being ?)
Note too that for greenies, who tend over time to get everything they want legislated for - Nothing at all is ever enough. They get handed everything, then they come up with a set of crazier and crazier demands. There is no room whatsover for negotiation, or avoiding bad consequences - their word is the way it is and that is the end of it.
Electricity ? Can't have coal, becuase of "carbon pollution", but hydro and wind are ok - No carbon ?
Hydro - Oh no, damming rivers destroys wildlife, and some rare fish. Wind ? No way, it kills some rare bird, and the noises from the blades distresses animals. Nuclear - Oh no, Chernobyl !
Solar - They haven't attacked that yet - but the fact is that it isnt a solution in that it doesn't work at night, in climates where there isnt much sun, and with high rise apartment buildings and office blocks would not have enough roof space to collect sufficient power. It also doesnt work well when there is bad weather. It would be useless to power heavy industry or something like an aluminium plant.
As you can see - the goal is not to make "clean" (though unaffordable) power, but to progressively remove these resources from the average person, and turn us back to a feudal state where we are mere slaves and animals, and these elites are our rulers living in unbelievable luxury. People like that are kept on the edge of starvation, they have no rights, they do not question, they do not protest, they do little to resist, and are flat out surviving. This sort of society is the wet dream of anyone in power, who wants to stay in power. Without affordable energy, the ability to travel you are nothing and have no economic future, no way out of ignorance or any form of life. Take a look at countries where this already happens.
Look also at Agenda 21 which is a scary policy of environmental evil.
**The prices I cited were international ones. Hence the use of US Dollars. Although the cost of electricity rose by a factor of approximately 2 between 1989 and now, the cost to aluminium processors is not so clear. Aluminium processors do deals with suppliers that do not reflect the real cost of energy. In at least one case, the producers has their own power generating plant (here in Australia).
I'll attempt to locate my cites with the relevant information.
-- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
**No, it is not. You have consistently failed to back your claims with any science. You supply only opinions. I cite science, whilst you cite nothing.
You avoid the fact that
**In this thread, I have cited a dozen or so SCIENTIFIC sources of good repute. Some of those sources (NASA, the US EPA, the US Academy of Sciences) were reporting the dangers of AGW, while George W Bush was in charge of the US. Just a reminder: George W Bush was inextricably linked to the oil industry and a well-known AGW denier. Same deal with CSIRO and John Howard. Care to explain that?As usual, you will fail to answer my questions. Your non-answer will be viewed as an admission that you are wrong.
and as being
**Care to prove it?As usual, you will fail to answer my questions. Your non-answer will be viewed as an admission that you are wrong.
**There is no other way to fund science or any other form of research. **Care to prove that?As usual, you will fail to answer my questions. Your non-answer will be viewed as an admission that you are wrong.
and both groups who own them want
**Strawman duly noted. Try to stay on topic.**Strawman duly noted. Try to stay on topic.
**So, what you are saying is this:
AGW science is a popularity issue, with the people who really know their stuff (IE: The climatologists) don't know what is going on, but the uneducated masses (IS: You, Tony Abbott, George Pell, et al) are right, for some unknown reasons? Is that what you're trying to say?
As usual, you will fail to answer my questions. Your non-answer will be viewed as an admission that you are wrong.
I have news for you: Science is not a popularity contest. Science involves research and the tabulation of that investigation. Just because a bunch of uneducated idiots don't believe the facts, does not make those facts invalid.
**Were they? Cite your proof of this.As usual, you will fail to answer my questions. Your non-answer will be viewed as an admission that you are wrong.
If you were a "scientist" and didn't agree with this good
**The research by the IPCC and others is about independent, quality science. Which, if you had taken the time to read and digest the IPCC reports, you would understand. By choosing NOT to read the IPCC reports and then criticising those same reports, you merely expose your extreme ignorance.-- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
Suggestion: Go easy on the name calling and labels. Everyone that disagrees with you is not necessarily an uneducated idiot.
Have you read through the infamous "Harry Read Me" file that demonstrates the extent to which at least some of the data was cooked?
I won't pretend to understand it all, but what little I can decode, reeks of manipulating the results to conform to expected results (or at least statistically significant results).
Also, I mentioned this in the past, but methinks this might be a good time to resurrect it. See:
This isn't directly related with AGW but it does show that it's very easy to manipulate trends and projections. That data shown is the rainfall statistics for my area. If I use an even order trend extrapolation, the graph is towards drought. If I use an odd order, it's toward deluge. I note that the "dog leg" has been dropped by the IPCC, largely for this reason. If you wanna see how it works, the spreadsheets used to create this are at:
-- Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
**I have a policy of treating people the way they deserve to be treated. If a person wilfully ignores the science and resorts to parrotting unsubstantiated rumour, then they have opened the door to the appropriate descriptors.
Everyone that
**People who dispute those who have spent their lives studying a subject, without presenting a shred of evidence to support their claims, are uneducated idiots. People who have failed to read the premier document on a given subject and then proffer their own unsupported opinions are uneducated idiots. **I have not read that particular document, though I have read half a dozen others, which comment negatively on the CRU. I've also read the CRU's response AND a couple of the INDEPENDENT reviews that have exonerated the CRU. Have you read all that? Or have you only read the negative comments? **Indeed. However, this is a trend which is VERY difficult to refute:Note the TREND. No data fudging is required to prove that the planet is experiencing a warming TREND. Some years will be warmer and some cooler. However, the overall TREND is clear and obvious. Also note that there are no predictions in this trend.
That data shown is the
**I suggest you examine the graph I tabled. Note the trend. It is clear and unarguable.-- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
**Here are some graphs that are directly related to the issues faced by Australia (and the rest of the planet):
The tools are available for you to mess around with the graphs all you wish. The results will be pretty much the same. The trend to higher temperatures accross Australia are clear and unequivocal. These are not guesses, nor projections. They're real, hard data.
-- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
as
a .een
gIf it is like everything else, permit fees, outrageous environmental regulations, rates, taxes and other charges are the usual suspects.
**I note your continued inability to answer my questions and deal with the facts presented. I accept your admission that you are wrong.
-- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
Have you stopped beating your wife? Please try to phrase your questions without the implied insults.
When it was first leaked, I read the original and made up my own mind as to what it represented. I later read the Wikipedia article and some of the referenced articles.
That was about 2 years ago. Accepting the conclusions of eminent authorities is certainly easier than trying to understand what happened, but I find it more interesting. From the above article: "Six committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct." which is correct. There was no fraud or misconduct. What I saw was a substantial amount of effort expended in removing and invalidating inconsistent data and data that did not fit the predefined conclusions. Unfortunately, as I didn't understand everything that was happening in the document, I can only offer a general impression.
Incidentally, I don't recall the exact report, but one of the early AGW research reports produced spectacular predicted temperature rises. Even the supporters were amazed, as was the press which carried the story in the most alarmist manner possible. It turned out that the researchers had used history from weather stations located in urban areas, which tend to be heat islands. When all the urban sensor data was removed, leaving only rural sensors, the numbers looked like random garbage with no obvious trend line. Recently, satellite data has eliminated much of these types of problems, but it was amusing to watch the cover up after this was pointed out.
I just wanted to point out how easy it is to do. Much to my disgust, the local water district used my method to justify drought funding a few years ago. We really did have a drought, but the historical numbers were insufficient to qualify for federally funded relief. So, they produced ominous trend graphs, but also "normalized" (tweaked) some of the data. Computers make all this so easy to do.
Holdit. A few rants ago, I mentioned that I believe that there's no question that there's been a trend towards temperature increase. I don't question any of that type of historical data (unless the original data is suspect). The pressing questions are:
Incidentally, I find it amusing that the IPCC and you are both using the term AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) where anthropogenic means "caused by humans" as if it's already conclusive that any and all effects are the result of human activities. Begging the question comes to mind.
It doesn't explain everything, but is a substantial part of the puzzle.
Hmmm... I wonder if the current unusual lack of sunspots is caused by human activity?
Ok. I won't argue.
-- Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.