Barnaby Joyce

[ColW]

Is a broken promise a Lie?

In the election campaign ALP policy was for an emmisions trading scheme
hence there will be "no Carbon Tax."

but the ALP didn't win outright and part of romancing the independants and greens
was bringing it to the table.

I suppose had the ALP considered the possibity of forming a minority Government
with greens and independants when the claim was made then it would be a lie.

[Greg Ward]

I think I understand, but I also think it's time to leave this discussion and have a beer and watch the news and Masterchef...... yes I know more horror, but the sun will rise tomorrow... and the day after.... and


The real problem will come in around 4 billion years when the sun becomes a red giant.
Now that will stir a bit of global warming.

Please share a beer with me tonight.

Greg

[jimbur]

The relationship between the broadcast media and politicians is unhealthy to say the least. Politicians are fitting their public comments in to a format designed to advertise consumer goods, short, catchy and only allowing one viewpoint. It's an insult to the electorate and to representative democracy.
We are now in a position where you can watch numerous television channels 24 hours a day which naturally has resulted in numerous outlets for extended garbage.
We should add one more channel, broadcasting parliament whenever it is sitting. Let's see them jeering, sneering, sleeping on their seats or not being there at all. Then we'd have no excuse to say we didn't know what was going on in our name.
They might even lift their game if they knew that all the insomniacs in their electorates were watching.
cheers,
JIm

[rrobor]

You know you ultra right liberals really hiss me poff. What is a lie, is it a core or non core promise. Polititians do as they must. God knows what Abbot promised to get his bum on the chair, it didnt happen. Get over it. Gillard is what we got. We got 4 years of that, Abbot is a dead duck, too right to get anywhere. If You are liberal , go left my son. Push labor left and you win. Abbot Is ultra right wing. I remember him on a Sunday " How do you do. " Saw communism under every blade of grass. Abbot is his little clone, yesterdays man. Gillard, is not much better, will never be a shining star. Please Australia there is better out there, the bunch of drones in Canberra at the moment need culled.
As to global warming Greg may repeat that in another 10 years if he dare but I doubt that. I wish he was correct, I can not prove otherwise, but my gut says in the next 10 years we will see nature claim many thousand more lives in an ever expanding violent cycle. May I prove to be incorrect.

[artme]

I think an increasing population and population density magnifies the effects of natural disasters.

We also have much more instant and wider reporting of things than when I was young, in my teens and even in my tenties and so our awareness is well and truly at a higher level.

Bigger disaters have happened in the past many things we see today. Witness Vesuvius, and Santorini.

That is not to say this could not happen again, and the loss of life would be far greater. But these events still ave nothing to do with a carbon tax, and only tangentially with climate change.

[rrobor]

A carbon tax is about you and I burning a finate resource faster than it can be created. Please tell me why have you a greater right to live than your grandfather had, or for that matter your grandson.
We have but one planet, one resource, Do you want to be the fat pig who lets the future starve or burn. Do you want to not risk that, Or can your be that little more concervative and admit that it seems there are a few clouds, so lets take the brolly with us. Guess what, If I am wrong the planet will not suffer. If you are wrong it will.

[Greg Ward]

I've had my beer and one for you as well.

The universe is above my comprehension, so I only focus on those things I can comprehend and thus I enjoy timber and trees, cutting down, cutting up and free standing; beautiful women and just ordinary ones as well, good food, especially potatoes and butter, and the sun rising every day.

Worrying about the negatives of life is OK if you enjoy that, but I'd rather think positive.

Global warming has lots of negatives, but please consider the positives as well.
Russia will become the grainbowl of the world, the world will gather more rain and thus there will be more productive land to plant corn, higher temperatures will lead to more male infertility and thus drop the population.
In Scandinavia, the dark and cold nights cause immense social problems. A warming earth will make more Swedes happier.
And not least, the Gold Coast will be under water!.

Please lighten up, yes it is serious, but we can also enjoy life while we slowly come to grips with change that society and nature will bring.

There were more massive changes to society last century through several world wars. In reality, compared to what our parents endured, we are in reality very lucky, with or without Cc

Greg

[artme]

A carbon tax is about you and I burning a finate resource faster than it can be created. Please tell me why have you a greater right to live than your grandfather had, or for that matter your grandson.
We have but one planet, one resource, Do you want to be the fat pig who lets the future starve or burn. Do you want to not risk that, Or can your be that little more concervative and admit that it seems there are a few clouds, so lets take the brolly with us. Guess what, If I am wrong the planet will not suffer. If you are wrong it will.

Whatever gave you the ideas about me that you have just expressed?

I am on record in these forums as saying exactly what you say:" we have but one planet, one resource" Couldn't agree more!

To infer what you have is insulting!!

[rrobor]

I inferred nothing and insulted nobody. You was used as referring to everybody, Why should I wish to single out anybody. What I did imply was a carbon tax would aid in reducing our greed. Not your greed or my greed, we all are guilty and we all should take stock. You stated that there is no evidence of disasters happening due to climate change. That is an opinion, one I disagree with. If you feel insulted that my opinion differs from yours, so be it.

[artme]

Read again my friend!!

I said there was no evidence that earthquakes and volcanic activity were influenced by climate change. I have said that it is possible that volcanic activity does effect the climate.

I was just looking for another post of mine that I wished to refer you to but it appears that it vanished into cyber space. In that post I stated that my house is insulated,I have PV panels on the roof, I have 10 000 litres of stored water and I am an avid recycler. I made thepoint that if we all did at least this much we would be on the way to making this orb a better place.

[damian]

Looking at reality, it is likely we are stuffing the planet up. It now comes down to who cares and who does not
As hurracanes increase Tornadoes increase, Earthquakes inrease and Volcanoes increase. If I was religious I would say someone is trying to tell us something. As I am not, I believe it just might be our stuff up. How long do you want to wait to find out.

Perhaps without realising it your skating very close here to my position. There are a couple of key points of difference though.

The 20th century, the only one most people remember, was abnormally calm both in terms of geological and extreme weather events. We have good reliable historical records of extreme weather going back a couple of thousand years (5 in fact if you study what is left of the ancient records). If this century trends back toward the long term average then we will see more hurricanes, volcanic eruptions etc than we are used to in our lives to now. This is ripe fodder for all manner of alarmists, not just the agw mob.

Now the point your making above as I read it is about pollution, deforestation and "civilised" human acitivity broadly. If I have interpreted that right you get no argument from me. If you want to look at wilderness restoration here or overseas I'm right on board. You want to look at sustainable managment of fisheries count me in. Want to look at air pollution ? I'm right there.

But...

If I get involved I'll want to apply the rigorous system engineers (should) apply to every problem. First understand what's happening, next consider courses of action, consider the outcomes of same then formulate and apply a plan of action. Retest in an appropriate time frame.

The reason I rail against this global warming stuff is that isn't what happened. The scientific process was corrupted and obfuscated, the politicians and the finance industry have appropriated the issue for their own ends, it is increasingly obvious to even the casual observer that the proposed actions will not yield good outcomes for the enviroment and will hurt working and middle class people a lot.

So if you want me to walk alongside you as we rail against enviromental destruction jump on the anti coal seam gas wagon, I'll be right there and plenty angry. By the time queensland's water table (and the great artesian basin) are loaded with methane and benzene and much of our farming land is poisoned the politicans will be long gone to their cushy well paid jobs, pockets stuffed with dirty cash, having looked after their mates, and we will be left to pay, as always.

Finally let me say it again. If you accept our elections are not rigged then in our democracy we get the government we deserve. We all feel good giving the politicians a good flogging, but someone voted for them, and if your looking for someone to blame it's the disinterested voters who are bought with spin and pork. This applies equally to all facets of politics, not just the left. I suppose it starts with education, but what we need more than anything is engaged well informed electorates. It is this failure that has brought us to this place, the politicians are just a symptom.

[rrobor]

I posted in this thread to show several things.
First/ There are always pigs in the trough those who only care for self.
Second/ This argument is now political, Abbot on the ultra right, Gillard on the left.
Each will have their bleating flock of followers.
Third/ If the sea rises due to ice melt at the poles, there must be an effect on gravity,
If the sea becomes less salty the currents change. If currents change the wind changes, it must. This is logic.
What I don’t know is what the effects will be of these changes and neither does anybody else
If these changes are correct and it seems more likely they are, should we not take steps to address them
And last These political arguments in a forum such as this get nowhere. Nobody changes their mind, they just go on and on in endless circles. From calling the PM a liar and ignoring the non core promises because it suits the bias. To the ridiculous green movement of hot air and little thought..

[Wood en I]

Check this out.

David Evans is a scientist. He has also worked in the heart of the AGW machine. He consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modeling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. He has six university degrees, including a PhD in Electrical Engineering from Stanford University. The other day he said:

The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro-thin half-truths and misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic.

And with that he begins a demolition of the theories, premises and methods by which the AGW scare has been foisted on the public.

The politics:

The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate scientists, now outrageously maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.

He makes clear he understands that CO2 is indeed a “greenhouse gas”, and makes the point that if all else was equal then yes, more CO2 in the air should and would mean a warmer planet. But that’s where the current “science” goes off the tracks.It is built on an assumption that is false.

The science:

But the issue is not whether carbon dioxide warms the planet, but how much.

Most scientists, on both sides, also agree on how much a given increase in the level of carbon dioxide raises the planet’s temperature, if just the extra carbon dioxide is considered. These calculations come from laboratory experiments; the basic physics have been well known for a century.

The disagreement comes about what happens next.

The planet reacts to that extra carbon dioxide, which changes everything. Most critically, the extra warmth causes more water to evaporate from the oceans. But does the water hang around and increase the height of moist air in the atmosphere, or does it simply create more clouds and rain? Back in 1980, when the carbon dioxide theory started, no one knew. The alarmists guessed that it would increase the height of moist air around the planet, which would warm the planet even further, because the moist air is also a greenhouse gas. [emphasis mine]

But it didn’t increase the height of the moist air around the planet as subsequent studies have shown since that time. However, that theory or premise became the heart of the modeling that was done by the alarmist crowd.

The modeling:

This is the core idea of every official climate model: For each bit of warming due to carbon dioxide, they claim it ends up causing three bits of warming due to the extra moist air. The climate models amplify the carbon dioxide warming by a factor of three — so two-thirds of their projected warming is due to extra moist air (and other factors); only one-third is due to extra carbon dioxide.

That’s the core of the issue. All the disagreements and misunderstandings spring from this. The alarmist case is based on this guess about moisture in the atmosphere, and there is simply no evidence for the amplification that is at the core of their alarmism.

What did they find when they tried to prove this theory?

Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960s, many thousands of them every year. The climate models all predict that as the planet warms, a hot spot of moist air will develop over the tropics about 10 kilometres up, as the layer of moist air expands upwards into the cool dry air above. During the warming of the late 1970s, ’80s and ’90s, the weather balloons found no hot spot. None at all. Not even a small one. This evidence proves that the climate models are fundamentally flawed, that they greatly overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide.

This evidence first became clear around the mid-1990s.

Evans is not the first to come to these conclusions. Earlier this year, in a post I highlighted, Richard Lindzen said the very same thing.

For warming since 1979, there is a further problem. The dominant role of cumulus convection in the tropics requires that temperature approximately follow what is called a moist adiabatic profile. This requires that warming in the tropical upper troposphere be 2-3 times greater than at the surface. Indeed, all models do show this, but the data doesn’t and this means that something is wrong with the data. It is well known that above about 2 km altitude, the tropical temperatures are pretty homogeneous in the horizontal so that sampling is not a problem. Below two km (roughly the height of what is referred to as the trade wind inversion), there is much more horizontal variability, and, therefore, there is a profound sampling problem. Under the circumstances, it is reasonable to conclude that the problem resides in the surface data, and that the actual trend at the surface is about 60% too large. Even the claimed trend is larger than what models would have projected but for the inclusion of an arbitrary fudge factor due to aerosol cooling. The discrepancy was reported by Lindzen (2007) and by Douglass et al (2007). Inevitably in climate science, when data conflicts with models, a small coterie of scientists can be counted upon to modify the data.

Evans reaches the natural conclusion – the same conclusion Lindzen reached:

At this point, official “climate science” stopped being a science. In science, empirical evidence always trumps theory, no matter how much you are in love with the theory. If theory and evidence disagree, real scientists scrap the theory. But official climate science ignored the crucial weather balloon evidence, and other subsequent evidence that backs it up, and instead clung to their carbon dioxide theory — that just happens to keep them in well-paying jobs with lavish research grants, and gives great political power to their government masters.

And why will it continue? Again, follow the money:

[AlexS]

And why will it continue? Again, follow the money:

Who is David Evans funded by?

[RETIRED]

Put it back on topic please.