On Sat, 2013-01-26 at 23:43 +1100, Andrew McGlashan wrote: The issue is freedom of speech, and attribution. The Koch brothers are free to publicise their beliefs, provided they stand behind them, but hiding their influence is in no ones interest. It will hurt them as well, eventually. There. Is. No. Debate. The opposition is nonsense. Denial is only from a lack of knowledge and understanding. You have been provided with the basics, and you keep refusing to consider. Again, you do not have an open mind. The other matter is that taking action on reducing the carbon intensity of human activities is actually the way to do better. Not doing so is suicidal, including economically. It does benefit a few extremely wealthy in the short term, but by closing off opportunities to everyone else. I have just been reading the latest Scientific American. I have been a subscriber since the early '70's, they do not publish such material without solid evidence. There is a fascinating article about the Gulf Stream, the effects of reduced arctic ice by more fresh water being less dense, and the wind patterns. They discuss a growing understanding of why western Europe tends to be less chill than the eastern seaboard of America in winter. At one point, there is a comment about the measure of incoming solar radiation, and the balance against what is radiated back out to space. If there is an imbalance, the temperature will change to restore the balance. The basis is very simple, with the detail backing matters up solidly. Quibbling with the laws of physics, the laws of thermodynamics, chemistry and the like is a measure of being a waste of the air you breathe. Your behaviour reminds me of what happens to a frog in a pan of cold water put on the stove, it will die without hopping out, it fails to register the slow change. Drop it in warm water, and it can recognise the danger and will try to escape. The changes are relatively slow, and less apparent with seasonal changes, but they are real. I have provided evidence, despite your denial. It is just that you appear to not recognise the material. Consider the planet as a whole, and the energy fluxes. If they are unequal, there will be a temperature change to restore the balance. If the outgoings increase, it gets colder, if the outgoings decrease, it gets warmer. Various molecules in the atmosphere have effects. CO2 and methane have a nett insulating effect. Water also has an effect, and it differs with the form it takes, and what altitude. Vapour is not visible, but the small droplets in clouds become visible. Fine ice crystals in clouds have other effects. The various effects are understood and modelled. Then they take the measurements of what happened in the past and try to predict what happened. The models that most closely predict the way things happened are then used to try to forecast what might happen. The models appear to have been too conservative. With something the size of the earth, a small imbalance over several decades can have a profound effect. What any one of us does is minuscule, but what we all do as a species is very significant. Homo sapiens are now using more per year than the planet can produce in several regards. That is measured, and beyond argument. That is with the vast majority still undeveloped, and aspiring to your lifestyle. You might be cheerful with the way we are heading, but I do not wish to leave such an impoverished world to the subsequent generations. We have what we have from the past. We hold it in trust for the future. There are no pockets in a shroud. Regards, Mark Trickett

On Sun, 27 Jan 2013, Mike Mitchell <m.mitch(a)exemail.com.au> wrote: It's not an issue of hating tobacco, in fact I don't even know whether Mark has any great objection to tobacco. But the tactics that the tobacco industry used to try and avoid responsibility for their actions are well known, the actions of the science denialists in regard to climate are much the same. Actually some degree of government social support has been proven to be essential to a modern society. This has been shown to work so well that countries such as France have the Socialist Party as one of their major parties. Please offer some "proof". No, it's ignorant people who believe in conspiracy theories. Smart people don't wait for an "end of life event". They plan for the things that seem reasonably likely. If I smoked a packet of cigarettes a day for the next 20 years I might not die of it. But the smart thing to do is to not take the chance. Actually the process of scientific research has a high level of scrutiny. The raw data is published and analysed by other scientists. Anyone who is shown to have falsified data loses their career immediately. Anyone who can show a better analysis of past data that proves something new or different is a hero. The idea that tens of thousands of scientists, lots of support staff, and major universities are all involved in a conspiracy is ridiculous. Any time when there are two groups of people who disagree and there's a possibility that one group is paid to take a position you should assume that the smaller group is being paid. Paying people without getting caught is not an easy task. There is a mature debate between scientists. Climate denialists aren't involved. Scientists risk their careers if they exaggerate. PR people and geologists who comment on climate science risk nothing. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/

On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 11:02 PM, Mark Trickett <marktrickett(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote: I put it to you that you are only worried about your extremest POV being ignored.! Your "chicken little" BS creates an extreme opposite and does not engender any form of understanding or real debate on the topic. I put it to you that you are as facile and corrupt as the ones you have chosen to quote as being opposition. I am a person who has been convinced that we have to do something to make things better. Do you (and those that concur) ever stop to consider that your pseudo "anger" and short lived indignant nonsense only serves the opposite? BW

Hi On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Mike Mitchell <m.mitch(a)exemail.com.au>wrote;wrote: some seeing climate change as a replacement for religion. Joe Hildebrand on ABC's Q&A mid last year poised a question that perfectly describes what I think you are getting at.. To paraphrase, it went something like this: When the Rudd/Howard election was in progress, climate change and what to do about it were firmly on the agenda. Both Labour and Libs promoted policies at that point that were very similar....an emissions trading scheme. Both policies were very close in terms of expected outcome and costs. Polls indicated that over 70% of the electorate overall were onside with both sides policies. No matter what happened in that election, our country was committed to a change, committed to reform and doing what was was right...reducing greenhouse gas. The science on Greenhouse Effects has been taught in schools since the 70s...the majority generally understands the issue and that something has to be done. Move forward to the Gillard coo and broken tax promise. All of a sudden, the electorate support for such a measure plummeted. So much so that the Libs have stupidly chosen to exploit it and oppose it. Hildebrands question to the audience was why? ....and deathly silence followed. The answer that comes to mind for most of the electorate is that they detested the deception and religious argument for the tax. A group with a 16% primary vote (now less than 11% and falling) made this tax a key part of the requirement for Labour to take power. Cynics rejoiced, each side of the argument took up their extreme positions and the majority was left in a political vacuum. The problem with such extreme opposites is that the real debate gets lost. I am convinced that we have to do something to reverse the CO2 levels in our atmosphere, but the current argumentsand fringie behaviour for such a change is ignoring the majority centrist physche: The extremists for climate change action blurt memes that only serve to divide instead of educate. There are 2 very important points to make in that regard: - In the majority of cases, anyone who raises a question on the subject that challenges the current thinking is a Denialist. A lay persons question is generally a call to be convinced. The evidence is clear, most of the centrist majority in the country have an understanding of the greenhouse effect and want to be convinced by valid and un-emotive argument, being labelled as a denialist for questioning the science ,( a word that has been burned into our language to ignore the existence of the Holocaust )is offensive and immediately shuts out the audience. What's more important to recognise is that the loony pseudo science think tank louts just love this.... Then, the extreme left shouts back wealthy bastards, the right yells get a job.... Blah,blah f*****n blah... Zero gain on the real issue. :-( - Laying immediate blame on natural disaster at the feet of Climate change is akin to the Tactics of a Religious Cult. One of my most enduring horrors in life was to witness the effect of a tidal wave in Aitape ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Papua_New_Guinea_earthquake) The immediate human reaction to natural disaster is to find cause and lay blame. After the shock, a raging anger is hard to suppress. This is what we are....human. To put forward an immediate "answer" or "reason" for a natural disaster after such events manipulates and takes advantage of vulnerable people, to do such is reprehensible and evil beyond measure...these are the tactics of Scientology and other cults. The fringe dwelling Fake Modern Armchair Greenie bleats Climate Change being the cause for all natural disaster. The Tea Party Dickheads rejoice at being able to point out this evil. Yet again, the real debate gets lost...zero gain :-( So my answer to everyone that choses to hide behind pseudo intellect and and mumbo jumbo quotes is to get a real life and start helping the situation before it is too late. The reality is that there is a balance in human affairs. Numbats like Alan Jones exist because there are equally Numbatty people like Christine Milne. Ying/Yang Centrists like myself are truly getting sick of the BS....full stop! BW

Hi all, I found an article in the Monthly by Robert Manne quiet interesting. https://www.themonthly.com.au/how-vested-interests-defeated-climate-science… (I don't know whether it was quoted here but I believe not. I did not read all mails here but most - I only have one day per day;-). I do not think the "vested interests" can be easily dismissed. Multi million dollar campaigns influence people's opinions. E.g. the Germans have a highly influencial manufacturing sector (and not much coal anymore). For them developing and building wind turbines or solar cells .. is good business. In Germany there is a consense to push for alternative energies, and it is not just about climate change. Our policies related to power generation influences the standing of our manufacturing industry as well. Regards Peter

On 27/01/2013 11:02 PM, Mark Trickett wrote: Let's see how worried you are in 20 years time, perhaps 10 years. I believe that for food production, we are actually CO2 poor. There have been times in our history where CO2 have been far greater. Producing food, which everyone needs, benefits greatly from increased CO2. http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/foodsecurity/GlobalFoodProducti… Needless to say, I am far more worried about world starvation through food shortage than rising sea levels. Cheers A.

On a list of essentially intelligent technically aware people, we seem to have hit a few raw nerves. Ad hominem arguments do not advance a line of debate, merely serve to raise the temperature. Maybe due to the instigator's really not having a defensible position. - What's going on? One of the treasures of our civilisation, the scientific method [2], is being used to seek answers. A significant number of alert enquiring people are using this sharp tool. They have developed, after much open scrutiny and vigorous informed debate, models of climate for the small spec of matter we call Earth. These models are the result of the ongoing debate. A debate readily found in peer-reviewed journals, where each point is challenged and found to be sound. Any and all errors are actively sought out, because _that_is_ the nub of the scientific method. - What are we left with? A significant upset to the equilibrium of this small planet's climate, caused by the activities of the species homo sapiens. (How sapient remains to be seen.) The increase in energy within our biosphere, captured from the Sun, is leading to an increase in extreme weather events around the planet. There is NO proof that climate change is NOT happening. Actuaries for insurance companies are hard at work, coming up with new policy premiums, and exclusions. [Some risks are effectively uninsurable. An example in place for decades is nuclear fission. Flood (not deluge from "the heavens") is rapidly becoming another.] - What are we going to do about the situation? And when? This is the area of general public discussion. So, while argumentum ad hominem is always poor form, I consider it _very_ poor form, directed towards the OP, one of our number, whose family home was very much threatened by one of the fires here in Victoria, and depending upon the weather, may _still_ be so threatened. The same was true seven years ago, in 2005, and two years before that, in 2003. The family home has now been directly threatened by fires in three of the last eleven summers. An occurrence now likely [3] into the future, thanks to climate change. Andrea [1] Names removed, quoted simply for example. [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method [3] I shall not enter into discussion of statistical proofs for this particular assertion, since I have more immediate pressing activities. Apologies for that.

Quoting Andrea (why(a)bigpond.net.au): [...] Just a brief note about the actual meaning of the term argumentum ad hominem and what specifically is objectionable about it. Argumentum ad hominem is a subcategory of non-sequitur argument where you say X's assertions should be disbelieved on account of X's personal characteristics _if those weren't relevant_ to X's arguments. If X said you should believe what he said because he is a member of the Liberal Party of Australia, and you rebut him with evidence that he's a leading member of the Communist Party of Australia, that is not an ad hominem argument, because you directly addressed X's reasoning, even if most people dislike Communists. On the other hand, if X's reasoning had nothing to do with party affiliation, and you objected to his line of reasoning on grounds of his being a Communist, that _is_ argumentum ad hominem. Argumentum ad hominem is objectionable because it attempts to distract listeners from the real discussion, not because it's poor form and attacks people personally. (I have great sympathy for people currently facing fire danger. Stay safe out there!) And thank you for your comments, Andrea. -- Rick Moen "So, this SEO copywriter walks into a bar, grill, rick(a)linuxmafia.com pub, public house, Irish bar, bartender, drinks, McQ! (4x80) beer, wine, liquor." -- Michael Karlsson

On 28/01/13 3:23 PM, Mike Mitchell wrote: I think they did test to higher proportions (the figure of 450 ppm comes to mind, though I couldn't confirm it without seeing the program again - which is entirely feasible later this century). One little aside is that as a kid I recall reading that CO2 was around 330 ppm (in books published in the 70s), and nowadays, figures of 380-390 are quoted, so there has been a more than 10% rise in my lifetime. -- 73 de Tony VK3JED http://vkradio.com