|
Post by wraggy on Sept 15, 2015 6:40:13 GMT
Relevant to this topic, beside to a fair number of forumers here, Tony Abbott has been replaced by Malcolm Turnbull in a leadership challenge. Turnbull is more libertarian/liberal than Abbott and considers climate change a genuine issue. www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-34245005A regular event in Aussie politics of late.
|
|
|
Post by evangelion on Sept 16, 2015 5:32:54 GMT
Relevant to this topic, beside to a fair number of forumers here, Tony Abbott has been replaced by Malcolm Turnbull in a leadership challenge. Turnbull is more libertarian/liberal than Abbott and considers climate change a genuine issue. www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-34245005Turnbull has already promised he will toe the party line on climate change. This means doing sod all.
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Sept 16, 2015 19:36:26 GMT
|
|
|
Post by evangelion on Sept 18, 2015 0:46:43 GMT
But you expect zero will change? Absolutely zero change. Supporting Rudd's ETS is what got Turnbull knifed in the first place. He needs to keep the party united, and he can't do that while advocating green policies.
|
|
|
Post by wraggy on Sept 18, 2015 6:31:30 GMT
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Sept 19, 2015 5:19:36 GMT
I think Turnbull is a pretty determined character. It is quite possible that, while he allowed principle to cause him to lose his leadership before, he won't allow that to happen again. But if he is successful, he has them over a barrel, and I too think he will not allow matters to rest that easily. It's hard to trust almost any politician, but I think he's as likely as most to stick up for a principle. We can only hope.
|
|
labarum
Master of the Arts
Posts: 122
|
Post by labarum on Oct 9, 2015 18:52:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Oct 9, 2015 22:53:49 GMT
It's an opinion piece by a conservative, climate sceptic journalist about a climate sceptic engineer, who serves on the board of advisors of a climate denialist Republican thinktank, published on a News Corp website, so it's probably not very important. Australian media are generally unreliable about climate change unless it's ABC or Fairfax - or the Climate Council.
|
|
jonkon
Master of the Arts
Posts: 111
|
Post by jonkon on Oct 11, 2015 17:22:05 GMT
It's an opinion piece by a conservative, climate sceptic journalist about a climate sceptic engineer, who serves on the board of advisors of a climate denialist Republican thinktank, published on a News Corp website, so it's probably not very important. Australian media are generally unreliable about climate change unless it's ABC or Fairfax - or the Climate Council. So only people whose livelihood depends upon the promotion of the myth of man-made climate change are to be trusted? The cited article, rather than being "true," merely underscores the fundamental flaw of climate change models, a flaw shared by the Mills Method of scientific experiment. The outcome depends upon the original data selected, so that any extrapolation beyond the original data set is subject to question. This is seen regularly in "scientific studies" on nutrition, where every few years a new study comes out that completely contradicts a previous study, thus is cholesterol/dairy products/exercise/etc. good or bad for you? Anybody who understands the basic physics of a greenhouse knows that man-made climate change is a fraud. A greenhouse works because radiant energy is fundamentally different than thermal energy. The glass panel in a green house allows the passage of radiant energy but blocks thermal energy. "Greenhouse" gasses like CO2 are defined by their ability to absorb radiant energy, but this energy is "absorbed" by an increase in vibrational energy of the atomic bonds in the molecule. The symmetrical construction of green house gas molecules, however, prevents this vibrational energy from affecting the linear translational energy that comprises the thermal energy of the molecule. Transformation of radiant into thermal energy is achieved through a black-body radiator (ie. the ground, vegetation, painted surfaces, animal bodies). The resulting thermal energy, by Dalton's Law of Partial Pressure, is apportioned among all (both greenhouse and non-greenhouse) gas molecules according to their respective concentration. Water, contained in the Earth's oceans, dissolves prodigious amounts of green house gasses, and any correlation between the Earth;s temperature and the amount of green house gas in the atmosphere is easily accounted for by the temperature dependence of the solubility constant.
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Oct 11, 2015 18:27:07 GMT
So only people whose livelihood depends upon the promotion of the myth of man-made climate change are to be trusted? The cited article, rather than being "true," merely underscores the fundamental flaw of climate change models, No, but the fact that most Australian newspapers selectively publish news from a climate sceptic angle doesn't give much credence to the theory. And the journalist who wrote about it isn't famous for her clear-headed analyses. The symmetrical construction of green house gas molecules, however, prevents this vibrational energy from affecting the linear translational energy that comprises the thermal energy of the molecule. And instead it's re-emitted as IR radiation. So yes, the transition to thermal energy takes place elsewhere, that means it can still store the energy. scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiationWater, contained in the Earth's oceans, dissolves prodigious amounts of green house gasses, and any correlation between the Earth;s temperature and the amount of green house gas in the atmosphere is easily accounted for by the temperature dependence of the solubility constant. This doesn't account for both oceanic acidification and the increase in atmospheric CO 2. That requires an absolute increase of that GHG.
|
|
jonkon
Master of the Arts
Posts: 111
|
Post by jonkon on Oct 12, 2015 16:37:18 GMT
So only people whose livelihood depends upon the promotion of the myth of man-made climate change are to be trusted? The cited article, rather than being "true," merely underscores the fundamental flaw of climate change models, No, but the fact that most Australian newspapers selectively publish news from a climate sceptic angle doesn't give much credence to the theory. And the journalist who wrote about it isn't famous for her clear-headed analyses. As opposed to a "scientist" whose next grant depends upon promoting the myth of man-made climate change? Neither has the credibility of a used car salesman! The symmetrical construction of green house gas molecules, however, prevents this vibrational energy from affecting the linear translational energy that comprises the thermal energy of the molecule. And instead it's re-emitted as IR radiation. So yes, the transition to thermal energy takes place elsewhere, that means it can still store the energy. scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiationSuch "storage" does not contribute to overall global warming. At best it "evens out" diurnal fluctuations in incident radiation (the day/night cycle). Water, contained in the Earth's oceans, dissolves prodigious amounts of green house gasses, and any correlation between the Earth;s temperature and the amount of green house gas in the atmosphere is easily accounted for by the temperature dependence of the solubility constant. This doesn't account for both oceanic acidification and the increase in atmospheric CO 2. That requires an absolute increase of that GHG. Excess dissolved CO2 is precipitated out as dolomite (magnesium carbonate) or limestone (calcium carbonate) the two most common rocks in the earth's crust. The process is reversed as the earth warms up. The atmospheric CO2 increase is a CONSEQUENCE, not a CAUSE, of global warming.
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Oct 12, 2015 20:59:37 GMT
As opposed to a "scientist" whose next grant depends upon promoting the myth of man-made climate change? Neither has the credibility of a used car salesman! Not really, it's probable that a scientist discovering a major flaw in the models would receive quite some scientific grant money as well, or in the unlikely case otherwise still lavish support from the usual suspects. Keep in mind that much of the work is interdisciplinary, also by many authors whose careers do not fully depend on toeing the party line or whatever the preferred phrase is. Such "storage" does not contribute to overall global warming. At best it "evens out" diurnal fluctuations in incident radiation (the day/night cycle). I beg your pardon, are you aware that CO 2 is also a recognised greenhouse gas in Venus's extreme greenhouse atmosphere? That's interdisciplinary. How would you explain that if it doesn't contribute to global warming? It isn't just the extreme density. Excess dissolved CO2 is precipitated out as dolomite (magnesium carbonate) or limestone (calcium carbonate) the two most common rocks in the earth's crust. The process is reversed as the earth warms up. The atmospheric CO2 increase is a CONSEQUENCE, not a CAUSE, of global warming. Skeptical Science informs us: www.skepticalscience.com/co2-coming-from-ocean.htmAnd this suggests that the ocean CO 2 uptake is indeed an uptake, positive. So there's evidence for CO 2 going into the ocean, net. www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Carbon+Uptake
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Oct 12, 2015 21:13:04 GMT
As opposed to a "scientist" whose next grant depends upon promoting the myth of man-made climate change? Neither has the credibility of a used car salesman! Hi Jonkon, I've heard this accusation more than once, but I've never seen any substantiation. Do you have any? Not just maybe one case, but evidence of collusion and dishonesty as you imply? That is really a serious charge against thousands of people's personal and scientific integrity! Are you trained in climate science or an associated field? What is the basis of your claims? I trained as a hydrologist, and worked in that field for much of my life, and I can say from spending a lot of time with hydrologic data that it definitely looks as if climate change is terrifyingly real, certainly in Australia. Climate change predictions are being realised. As part of my work, I spent time discussing climate change with CSIRO climate scientists. (CSIRO is a government organisation.) They generally didn't depend on winning the sort of grants you describe, and at the time (as now) the Liberal-National coalition government in power was not sympathetic to climate change, so they certainly had no incentive to make things up. I found them to be very careful and cautious, as I, an engineering hydrologist, found all the environmental scientists I worked with. But they were quite convinced by the science they were doing - and that was almost 15 years ago. I think, unless you have evidence of systematic fraud, such accusations shouldn't be made, and appear to be a desperate excuse to avoid the unwelcome science.
|
|
jonkon
Master of the Arts
Posts: 111
|
Post by jonkon on Oct 13, 2015 22:43:08 GMT
Hi Jonkon, I've heard this accusation more than once, but I've never seen any substantiation. Do you have any? Not just maybe one case, but evidence of collusion and dishonesty as you imply? That is really a serious charge against thousands of people's personal and scientific integrity! Are you trained in climate science or an associated field? What is the basis of your claims? Let's see, apart from recent scandals where climate change scientists have been caught doctoring their data?: 129 Climate Scandals notrickszone.com/climate-scandals/#sthash.0oqv82Ch.dpbsClimategate www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.htmlwww.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230943/Climate-change-scandal-BBC-expert-sent-cover-emails-month-public.htmlwww.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/feb/02/climate-change-hacked-emailswww.principia-scientific.org/breaking-new-climate-data-rigging-scandal-rocks-us-government.htmlFor most of my 30 year career as a product design engineer I was responsible for the reliability and safety assessments of my employer's products, a task requiring me to regard my professional colleagues as incompetent jackasses. This situation can be regarded as the rule, rather than the exception (published articles in engineering trade journals estimate that over 95% of degreed scientists and engineers lack sufficient knowledge of scientific principles and methodology to creatively apply them). Numerous times I have uncovered serious design flaws in products that have been in production for many years and that haven't harmed users only through incredible luck. One design flaw common to all ECG monitors (the 25 year old design has effectively become public domain) even has passed through FDA test protocols. Fortunately the flaw is benign, which actually is the problem, since it is incapable of performing its intended function. Correcting the problem merely involves rerouting a circuit board trace, but it would invalidate decades of clinical experience (In the 1960's solid state electronics allowed noise filtering of ECG waveforms. This "improvement" was resisted, however, by cardiologists who were used to the fuzzy wave-forms generated by equipment that had been in use since prior to the 1920's.). Generally manufacturers address the problem by hiring experienced designers from competitors, hence the phrase "three to five years experience required" inevitably found in adds for engineering employment, forcing recent graduates to learn on the job through trial-and-error, with the unsuspecting public forced to live (hopefully!) with the resulting errors. General Electric was forced to deal with the issue by creating its in-house ABC Course in the 1920's. The basis of my claims is intimate knowledge of the relevant physical principles involved, which I have employed in the design of commercially successful blood gas monitors.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Oct 14, 2015 10:15:27 GMT
Hi Jonkon, Thanks for your response. I'm not sure this discussion is going to go anywhere useful, but I'll have a go. 1. Your work as a product design engineer isn't really very relevant to climate science. I think my work as a hydrologist might be slightly more relevant, but neither of us is an expert. So unless you have some amazing access to data, models and expertise, we are both reliant on experts. 2. I asked for "evidence of systematic fraud", and 4 out of the 5 links you gave referred to the 2009 East Anglia so-called "Climategate scandal". I haven't ever researched this so-called scandal, but I recall at the time that it looked like a beat-up - pretty rubbishy reports by a bunch of newspapers looking for a story and taking a bunch of pirated emails out of context. And when I checked up now, that seems to have been a pretty fair assessment. Here's a few explanations that aren't quite as "Shock! Horror!" as your references - in Wikipedia, the Union of Concerned Scientists, Fact Check.org, the Guardian, Rational Wiki, and Skeptical Science. The Union of Concerned Scientists link provides dozens of links to investigations that support the conclusion that the whole thing was a beat-up, based on taking short statements out of context. I presume you have the same information available to you, so I am surprised you would use what appear to be discredited and sensationalist newspaper reports and ignore more fact-based reviews. And even if the allegations had been found to be true, it would have affected a very small proportion of climate scientists, and does nothing to discredit the rest of the world's climate scientists. 3. Your other reference is to a site that claims "129 climate scandals". Obviously I don't have time to investigate all the claims on that site, but here are a few beauties: - "Hate, intolerance, and violence are embedded in the psyche of the environmental movement, as the following promo video illustrates."
- "IPCC wrongly claims that in some African countries yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50 percent by 2020."
- "The science says… Science is increasingly used as an instrument of authority to impose public policy."
- "Follow the money. BP funds Big Green."
- "Canadian weather data is a mess."
- "Morbid Phil Jones felt cheery about the death of John Daly, a sceptic climate scientist."
- "Leading environmentalists fly 12,000 miles to attend a conference on protecting the environment."
I'm not saying there aren't some decent facts there, but these statements are not evidence and hardly give confidence that this site is any more than more "Shock! Horror!" misrepresentation. Of course climate science isn't yet exact in many of its predictions - its models, like the phenomena they are modelling, are complex and it takes time to develop them, improve them and adjust them to the data. The broad picture is clear, but at the local level the predictions still need greater precision and accuracy. There will always be scope for finding little faults, the question is whether the models are generally correct. 4. So who do we believe, the sceptics or the believers? The real way we decide if some scientific fact is true is by peer-reviewed science. And here the evidence strongly supports climate science. - A review of over 4000 scientific papers on the topic showed that 97.2% supported the science of global warming.
- NASA reports that 18 US scientific bodies support the conclusion that "climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver."
- Wikipedia lists 5 studies that surveyed scientific views on climate change, and show that the vast majority support the view that it is real.
- Countries around the world accept that climate change is real: Europe, Australia, China, India, even (perhaps) Russia.
That is a lot of evidence! 5. To believe that scientists across the globe are all conspiring on this is an enormous allegation, and a classic conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theories have been studied quite a bit, and it seems that some common features are: mistrust of authority, alienation from and cynicism about mainstream politics, accusations and theories that are difficult to prove or disprove (often because they pick up on minor difficulties with the perceived wisdom but ignore the larger picture), increasingly elaborate theories to accommodate new and uncongenial facts, a sense of things being out of the conspiracist's control, and accusations of nefarious motives that undergird the conspiracy. Some of these characteristics can be seen in other popular sceptical/conspiracy theories: - The mythicist responses to historical Jesus books by Bart Ehrman and Maurice Casey generally attacked minor inconsistencies and details, but required larger inconsistencies in their own views, and often (e.g. Richard Carrier) made personal attacks on those two scholars.
- Ditto the view that Nazareth didn't exist in Jesus' day - sceptics nit-picked minor details, often revealing their own limited understanding, and have had to find increasingly difficult explanations when new archaeological facts come in supporting that Nazareth was there in mid first century.
- Likewise 6 day creationism has had to adjust to new facts like the DNA evidence, and often sees base motivations in evolutionary scientists.
Your 129 climate scandals seems to be a similar type of site and argument. 6. So we have two hypotheses. (1) climate scientists are increasingly understanding the science, modelling is improving all the time, and their conclusions are generally true, or (2) scientists from all over the world have joined a conspiracy to foist a false theory on us all, and only a few brave climate sceptics are telling the truth. All the evidence I have outlined above (and there is heaps of science behind it all) point to the scientists telling the truth and the deniers picking up only scraps of information and misinformation. I really don't know how anyone could come to any other conclusion. Have you got better evidence than you offered before? Is there something I have missed? Thanks.
|
|