Copenhagen summit dec '09, scam.

[MO]

@durtyharry,I wish you'd turn full circle and stop your bs.

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by MO

@durtyharry,I wish you'd turn full circle and stop your bs.

Seconded.

The Himalayan topic is referenced elsewhere.

Happy as a copper with a full quota- that the ETS TAX failed and that Rudd at Nopenhagen achieved - 'nothing'.

Awaiting now for the next development, and watch out for the Hendry AUS Taxation Review.....

Is scared, runs away . . . . . .

[Barry_v]

Originally Posted by durtyharry

Many reversals of theories?, please tell!

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1225823075213

[Hillbilly F Truck]

Originally Posted by Barry_v

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1225823075213

Thanks mate I was just going to post that link.

THE UN climate science panel faces new controversy for wrongly linking global warming to a rise in natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change based the claims on an unpublished report that had not been subjected to routine scientific scrutiny - and ignored warnings from scientific advisers. The report's author later withdrew the claim because the evidence was too weak. The link was central to demands at last month's Copenhagen climate summit by African nations for compensation of $US100 billion from the rich nations. However, the IPCC knew in 2008 that the link could not be proved but did not alert world leaders, who have used weather extremes to bolster the case for action on climate change. Kevin Rudd last November linked weather extremes to the debate over the government's emissions trading scheme.

United Nations caught out again on climate claims

[chief]

Lord Monckton coming to Australia. More info can be found here: http://fordforums.com.au/showthread.php?t=11286335


Also another The Australian story about scientists lying to win grants.

Originally Posted by The Australian

THE chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has used bogus claims that Himalayan glaciers were melting to win grants worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1225823060661

[vztrt]

GM vice-chairman says CO2 is not an issue

http://www.goauto.com.au/mellor/mell...2576B6001189BF

GM’s Lutz blames solar flares, not CO2, for global temperature rises

25 January 2010

By JAMES STANFORD

GENERAL Motors’ vice-chairman Bob Lutz might be a keen supporter of the Chevrolet Volt plug-in electric vehicle, but he still does not believe in climate change.

The man who came up with the V10 Dodge Viper during his time at Chrysler once famously described climate change as a “croc of sh**” and does not appear to have changed his view.

During an interview at the Detroit motor show, Mr Lutz was asked if the cold weather in Michigan proved that his views on climate change were correct.

He said: “They have been vindicated.”

Mr Lutz said he would not give a speech on the topic because he would “get into trouble”, but could not resist the temptation.

“All I ever say is look at the data, look at the empirical evidence, look at what they said ten years ago with rising ocean levels, hasn’t happened,” he said.

“Those of you who watch the Al Gore Inconvenient Truth saw him put his hands over the Gulf of Mexico with all this boiling water and (say) ‘If you think Hurricane Katrina was bad, you haven’t seen anything yet’, and we are going to have all these horrible hurricanes every year and we haven’t had one. Katrina was like six years ago and we are yet to get the next hurricane.”

Mr Lutz said the Russians were right all along.

“The climate has relatively cooled in the last ten years, just as the Russian astrophysicists said 10 years ago,” he said.

“They said it has got nothing to do with CO2 and everything to do with solar activity and when the solar flares stopped and the sun has been unusually quiet, almost to the point that it is starting to worry people, global temperatures go down.”

He concluded that “governments are still hell bent on this CO2 thing”, before mentioning with a hint of satisfaction that Rudd government CO2 cap and trade legislation had “come a cropper”.

While Lutz is clearly not a believer in climate change, he does feel there is an urgent need to move towards alternate fuels, especially electricity, because of a shortage of oil supply. “Rather than gradual rises in oil prices, we face the risk that as the economy recovers as you get within two or three per cent of short-term peak oil refining capacity you get this sharp rise again and when you get the sharp rise it tips you into another recession,” he said.

“That’s why we have to find alternatives to petroleum, even if just to have a kind of dampening effect on these wild oscillations.”

Mr Lutz said the fuel supplies would come under increasing pressure from China in the next 10 to 20 years.

“They are going to consume a lot of petroleum,” he said.

“At some point we are going to start running short of petroleum because we will start to get to the limit of what can be extracted economically and at that point we have to have alternative drive systems which, to me are going to be electric.”

[rodderz]

Well said Mr Lutz. His comment about using new energy sources rather than oil reserves is a reason why a new commodity (carbon trading) has been created to make huge profits once petroleum use decreases.

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by trippytaka

Not sure if this is about the ETS or climate change action. Firstly, most of you know I am against an ETS, but a believer in human made climate change.

Sorry, but how can you be a believer in man made climate change when natural climate change has been happening since the beginning of time. Add in a meteor strike, a volano eruption of the magnitude of Krackatoa and you have a climate changing event.

Our input pales into insignificant compared to those events.

[durtyharry]

Originally Posted by Barry_v

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1225823075213

Pardon?Reversal: IPCC now says instances of catastrophic weather etc have reduced to due global warming?

They they have simply withdrawn/retracted any claims that there is in association due to their admission that the data is weak.
Reversal/retraction, no they dont mean the same thing

Interestingly, the article from The Australian quotes “"suffered rapidly rising costs due to extreme weather-related events since the 1970s". It suggested part of the increase was because of global warming.

I have perused the 2007 IPCC report and find no such wording, the most relevant bit I found was: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/w...hp?idp=61#1434 and http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/w...ex.php?idp=419.

Did any of you check it out for yourselves, or did you leave your trust to the most notorious denialist news network.
Yes, “The Australian” who is run by Murdoch and while the message from The Australian subtely attacts AGW, his American Fox network is an indictment on sensible news in this regard, see: http://www.prwatch.org/node/8760, particularly:

A common argument on why climate change skeptics get so much traction in the media is that when it comes to scientific disputes such as over global warming, generalist journalists and editors find it easier to simply opt for a "he said, she said" story. Using this formulaic approach, stories assign equal weight to both the views of peer-reviewed scientists who are specialists in their field and the arguments of skeptics who commonly have no or very limited scientific credentials.
Back in 2004, two academics, Max and Jules Boykoff, reviewed mainstream news media coverage (pdf) of global warming and concluded that "the prestige press’s adherence to balance actually leads to biased coverage of both anthropogenic contributions to global warming and resultant action." The bias, they argued, "contributed to a significant divergence of popular discourse from scientific discourse."
But sometimes, it is far, far worse, when even the "balanced story" formula is jettisoned and a journalist uncritically relies cites the opinions of a climate change skeptic without even offering readers any alternative point of view.

For a responsible network to assign layman like Monckton air time to debate on this issue when he has have no reputable science to stand behind to disprove agw would be as sensible as having someone from this Forum get up and say “its all bs, because I say so”. Of course Monckton is able to get some oxygen on corrupt networks with cash for comment journalists(Alan Jones), Glen Beck etc, where they dont have the knowledge or the inclination to realise that every time he moves his lips he is lieing.

Murdoch is slimy too, trying to create a green caring persona: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1111113507477, but his actions through his news companies says otherwise.

On one hand we have people on this forum screaming about how gullible the general public are in believing anything the media tells them, but anything that is written that challenges agw is accepted without question, go figure.

Perhaps actually read all the scientific literature that is published rather than relying on media intepretations.

Perhaps have a look at http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/...l_machine.html, it lists all the familiar names from the denialist industry and gives good reasons as to why not a single word that comes out of their mouths should be given any credibility.

Really, the IPCC has clarified two predicitions. Unfortunately it doesnt change the landscape one iota, all glaciers are getting smaller and the earth is heating.

You have some very high standards, 2 retractions amongst pages of documents makes agw debunked, but why dont you apply the same standards to all the denialist diatribe that comes your way.

Plimer, has been proven wrong/lieing on at least 20 levels, as has Monckton, but you continue to have blind faith in these two, just because they are telling you what you want to hear?

[Romulus]

Yes it's a reversal, they cooked up the 'evidence' in the first place.

[trippytaka]

Originally Posted by GT Falcon

Sorry, but how can you be a believer in man made climate change when natural climate change has been happening since the beginning of time. Add in a meteor strike, a volano eruption of the magnitude of Krackatoa and you have a climate changing event.

Our input pales into insignificant compared to those events.

Actually it doesn't... humans put out 130 times the carbon emissions that vocanoes do. The sceptics line about volcanoes goes 100% against scientific consensus.

[trippytaka]

Originally Posted by durtyharry

For a responsible network to assign layman like Monckton air time to debate on this issue when he has have no reputable science to stand behind to disprove agw would be as sensible as having someone from this Forum get up and say “its all bs, because I say so”. Of course Monckton is able to get some oxygen on corrupt networks with cash for comment journalists(Alan Jones), Glen Beck etc, where they dont have the knowledge or the inclination to realise that every time he moves his lips he is lieing.

It's amazing isn't it... tens of thousands of researchers and scientists working together for decades make findings that a proven over and over again, and reinforced by more and more studies are ignored. But a parlimentary advisor-turned-journalist-turned-climate-expert gets the thumbs up from a majority of followers who would fail a 5th grade science test.

It's a simple theory really, find a couple of mistakes within millions of threads of solid climate data and you've got yourself enough ammunition to be a leading sceptic.

[snappy]

Originally Posted by trippytaka

It's amazing isn't it... tens of thousands of researchers and scientists working together for decades make findings that a proven over and over again, and reinforced by more and more studies are ignored. But a parlimentary advisor-turned-journalist-turned-climate-expert gets the thumbs up from a majority of followers who would fail a 5th grade science test.

It's a simple theory really, find a couple of mistakes within millions of threads of solid climate data and you've got yourself enough ammunition to be a leading sceptic.

So its ok for a ex politician to push the global warming theory , but not to try an prove it wrong .
Yes your right it is amazing

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by trippytaka

Actually it doesn't... humans put out 130 times the carbon emissions that vocanoes do. The sceptics line about volcanoes goes 100% against scientific consensus.

Really? Scientific consensus versus fact:


Taken from Wikipedia, 1883 eruption of Krakatoa;

Global climate

In the year following the eruption, average global temperatures fell by as much as 1.2 degrees Celsius (2.2 °F). Weather patterns continued to be chaotic for years, and temperatures did not return to normal until 1888. The eruption injected an unusually large amount of sulfur dioxide (SO2) gas high into the stratosphere which was subsequently transported by high-level winds all over the planet. This led to a global increase in sulfurous acid (H2SO3) concentration in high-level cirrus clouds. The resulting increase in cloud reflectivity (or albedo) would reflect more incoming light from the sun than usual, and cool the entire planet until the suspended sulfur fell to the ground as acid precipitation.

Global optical effects

Noctilucent cloud
The dramatic skyline in Edvard Munch's The Scream (1893) is thought to be based on the global optical effects caused by the eruption and seen over Oslofjord, Norway.

The eruption darkened the sky worldwide for years afterwards, and produced spectacular sunsets throughout the world for many months. British artist William Ashcroft made thousands of colour sketches of the red sunsets half-way around the world from Krakatoa in the years after the eruption. In 2004, researchers proposed the idea that the blood-red sky shown in Edvard Munch's famous 1893 painting The Scream is also an accurate depiction of the sky over Norway after the eruption.[11] Munch said: "suddenly the sky turned blood red ... I stood there shaking with fear and felt an endless scream passing through nature." Also, a so-called blue moon had been seen for two years as a result of the eruption.

This eruption also produced a Bishop's Ring around the sun by day, and a volcanic purple light at twilight.

No amount of emission created has ever been able to match the effect of one volcano. Never. No amount of scientific 'consensus' can prove we are capable of matching nature's fury when it comes to climate change. If we are, and are putting out 130 times the emission of just one volcano, where are the effects of it? By rights, we should be seeing a cooler climate. But wait, we're being told the climate is heating up - no - cooling down wtf..... :

[rodderz]

Originally Posted by trippytaka

It's amazing isn't it... tens of thousands of researchers and scientists working together for decades make findings that a proven over and over again, and reinforced by more and more studies are ignored. But a parlimentary advisor-turned-journalist-turned-climate-expert gets the thumbs up from a majority of followers who would fail a 5th grade science test.

It's a simple theory really, find a couple of mistakes within millions of threads of solid climate data and you've got yourself enough ammunition to be a leading sceptic.

I think you and your mate harry are missing the point. First of all on the volcano subject, the amount of carbon released would depend on how many eruptions took place and how big they were.

Secondly, there is plenty of evidence around to suggest that those in favour of climate change, in particular those in a powerful position, use it as an agenda to push towards carbon trading that will net them billions. It's plain to see. Climate change real or not, they are using it as the ultimate precursor towards creating and continuing a worldwide commodity that will make oil, gas and minerals look like poo change. For sure energy saving practises are a great thing, but the plebs up the top of the food chain couldnt care less, as everyone would of woodied in to their plan of being fearful of our planet turning into a desert before long in their over dramatised propaganda scenario's

[trippytaka]

Originally Posted by GT Falcon

Really? Scientific consensus versus fact:


Taken from Wikipedia, 1883 eruption of Krakatoa;

Global climate

In the year following the eruption, average global temperatures fell by as much as 1.2 degrees Celsius (2.2 °F). Weather patterns continued to be chaotic for years, and temperatures did not return to normal until 1888. The eruption injected an unusually large amount of sulfur dioxide (SO2) gas high into the stratosphere which was subsequently transported by high-level winds all over the planet. This led to a global increase in sulfurous acid (H2SO3) concentration in high-level cirrus clouds. The resulting increase in cloud reflectivity (or albedo) would reflect more incoming light from the sun than usual, and cool the entire planet until the suspended sulfur fell to the ground as acid precipitation.

Global optical effects

Noctilucent cloud
The dramatic skyline in Edvard Munch's The Scream (1893) is thought to be based on the global optical effects caused by the eruption and seen over Oslofjord, Norway.

The eruption darkened the sky worldwide for years afterwards, and produced spectacular sunsets throughout the world for many months. British artist William Ashcroft made thousands of colour sketches of the red sunsets half-way around the world from Krakatoa in the years after the eruption. In 2004, researchers proposed the idea that the blood-red sky shown in Edvard Munch's famous 1893 painting The Scream is also an accurate depiction of the sky over Norway after the eruption.[11] Munch said: "suddenly the sky turned blood red ... I stood there shaking with fear and felt an endless scream passing through nature." Also, a so-called blue moon had been seen for two years as a result of the eruption.

This eruption also produced a Bishop's Ring around the sun by day, and a volcanic purple light at twilight.

No amount of emission created has ever been able to match the effect of one volcano. Never. No amount of scientific 'consensus' can prove we are capable of matching nature's fury when it comes to climate change. If we are, and are putting out 130 times the emission of just one volcano, where are the effects of it? By rights, we should be seeing a cooler climate. But wait, we're being told the climate is heating up - no - cooling down wtf..... :

Cheers for the Wiki research... here's some science from the USGS (U.S. Geological Survey).

RESEARCH

Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)

[trippytaka]

Originally Posted by rodderz

I think you and your mate harry are missing the point. First of all on the volcano subject, the amount of carbon released would depend on how many eruptions took place and how big they were.

Secondly, there is plenty of evidence around to suggest that those in favour of climate change, in particular those in a powerful position, use it as an agenda to push towards carbon trading that will net them billions. It's plain to see. Climate change real or not, they are using it as the ultimate precursor towards creating and continuing a worldwide commodity that will make oil, gas and minerals look like poo change. For sure energy saving practises are a great thing, but the plebs up the top of the food chain couldnt care less, as everyone would of woodied in to their plan of being fearful of our planet turning into a desert before long in their over dramatised propaganda scenario's

I agree that there are some elements (powerful indeed) out there pushing it for their own gain. But that has always existed. I agree with you 100% on the fact that the ETS will be a failure and a massive tax on the Earth.

At the end of the day the powerful few pushing new energy is not that far removed from us being led into wars over the past few decades to secure oil... there has always been a controlling few when it comes to energy supply. And they have always seemed to act in corrupt ways. Fossil fuels or renewable energy, it's all the same when it comes to government corruption and the power of the almighty dollar.

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by trippytaka

Cheers for the Wiki research... here's some science from the USGS (U.S. Geological Survey).

RESEARCH

Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)

Thanks for that. However, as you say, they are calculations, not fact. Krakatoa happened, was real, did not require calculations.

Your calculations assume the data you have is accurate. Therein lies the problem. Much as the IPCC data is proving to be wrong, changing the 'calculations' of AGW.

[durtyharry]

Originally Posted by snappy

So its ok for a ex politician to push the global warming theory , but not to try an prove it wrong .
Yes your right it is amazing

Would it be ok for him to front a campaign telling people to stop smoking because it causes lung cancer? but it would be immoral to say it doesnt?

Of course Al Gore, he will get rich out of CO2 credits? Possibly, however, you need to do your research. Al Gore was long ago challenged to put his money where his mouth is, he did, and has made investments in not only carbon credits but many forms of renewable energy and provided loans to many of them.

Personally, I believe this was the wrong choice as it has created an excuse for the denialists.

Many claim, he’s just a has been politician cashing in on his name. Well certainly he is using his name to further the cause, but the need to cash in is dubious.

Do appreciate he made his way to the very top of American politics and was arguably cheated out of the presidency by a polling fiasco, a failed politician, hardly.

Mr Gore(has long been a wealthy man) could have walked into any number of private organisations and continued to make a very comfortable living just being on the board etc.

He chose to do something that he could see getting knocked back by the vested self interests those in government of the time in the USA, his noble act being the reason why he got a Nobel prize.

Mr Gore’s message is simply to communicate the science and urge people to take action, and he has been very successful at that, though Id be the first to agree that some of the information has been "lost in translation". As Ive said before, best to get your info first hand from the scientific sources.

Nothing wrong with trying to prove agw incorrect(and many scientists are doing exactly that – part of the verification process), but getting up there in public with absolutely no relevant or reputable science and just spinning of lies and deception(Monckton), that is unjustifiable.

[snappy]

Nothing wrong with trying to prove agw correct(and many scientists are doing exactly that – part of the verification process), but getting up there in public with absolutely no relevant or reputable science and just spinning of lies and deception(Gore), that is unjustifiable.

Fixed it for you , two way street gore has also been proven to spin many lies

[durtyharry]

Originally Posted by GT Falcon

Really? Scientific consensus versus fact:
By rights, we should be seeing a cooler climate. But wait, we're being told the climate is heating up - no - cooling down wtf..... :

Indeed, one may say wtf..........

I dont think you have formed a good understanding of volcanoe emissions at all.

In short CO2 emissions cause long term warming(that is why we are not seeing a cooler climate), SO2 and ash emissions cause short term cooling,

What has been verified, by every reputable geographical source, including Nasa(for what that is worth) is that the emission of CO2 from volcanoes since the industrial revolution is about 130th of the CO2 emissions that man has made(as has already been pointed out by trippykaka). Ian Plimer infamously made claims of otherwise in his book and has been slammed from pillar to post on the matter.

The science is saying(has proven) that the increase in CO2 that has been observed in the last 100 years is a man made phenomena, which is in keeping with the gigatonnes of CO2 that has to have been released with all the fossil fuels we have burnt.

The last time atmospheric CO2 concentrations were this high, was over 15 million years ago, have a think about that.

Emissions from volcanoes have not suddenly changed in the last 100 years to be responsible for the the extra CO2 or warming we are seeing, period. That is what the evidence is saying about volcanoes and WARMING.

Now, either deliberately or through ignorance GT falcon is trying to muddy the waters with the short term effect volcanoes have on COOLING when they erupt.

There are emissions of many gases, SO2, CO2 and a whole lot of particulate ash in an eruption


The ash and SO2 actually reflects a large amount of the visible light spectrum from the sun and yes it can cause significant COOLING at the earth. This, however, is only a phenomenon in the short term, a couple of years.

The ash will eventually settle on the ground and the SO2 will mix with the atmospheric water and eventually precipitate out as sulfuric acid(acid rain) and basically things will return to how they were.

So yes, by rights if we had constantly large scale volcano eruptions(which we arent), the earth would cool.

Hopefully the mystery has been solved for you.

[durtyharry]

Originally Posted by GT Falcon

Thanks for that. However, as you say, they are calculations, not fact. Krakatoa happened, was real, did not require calculations.

Your calculations assume the data you have is accurate. Therein lies the problem. Much as the IPCC data is proving to be wrong, changing the 'calculations' of AGW.

Did someone collect all the gas that came out of Krakatoa and weigh it or something, of course calculations were done in order to best come up with an estimate of the amount that it spewed out.
Trippykaka hasnt dont any calculations, nor is he relying on what the IPCC says. The data that provides the best idea of emissions from volcanoes comes from the US geographical society, not the IPCC.

Really, the data is wrong just because it isnt what you want to hear?
If you want to argue its wrong, best you tell us why it is wrong and what is wrong with how they arrived at there figures, and what you think the correct figures are.
Your claims are baseless.

[durtyharry]

Originally Posted by snappy

Fixed it for you , two way street gore has also been proven to spin many lies

You still dont get it?

It matters little whether Gore is full of ........ or not, I dont particularly care for him either.
It doesnt change the good science that he is telling us about

Monckton, on the other hand, where there is no good science behind his claims, is trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes.

[MO]

durtyharry,why don't you get back in the sand pit and play with your other persona,'torbirdie'. You say GT Falcons claims are baseless well if thats the case so is your existence.

Your a bore go away.

[Falcon Coupe]

Copenhagen is over and achieved little, banging on about it here is now a moot point.