Carbon Tax Rally

@ nick3 "Like I said if you manipulate any finding's you will get the result's that suit your cause."

And you don't think nick3, that there's a chance, just a small chance that it might be you who is doing this and not the climate scientists?

Considering you're getting on these forums and telling an entire field of science that they're wrong and you're right, I'd say there's a pretty big chance you might have fallen into the trap you're so fervently warning us all about.

Nick it is not manipulated!

It is data taken from ice-cores which retain different isotopes of Carbon.

The data isn't fudged, it's exactly the same theory as measuring the percentage of Alcohol in a bottle of Jack's for example. Or don't you believe this as well!

Wake up to yourself..

there is a major difference between burning timber, coal and oil. coal is a more concentrated source of carbon than wood burn coal you are instantly releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere, oil is a more concentrated form of carbon than coal now this is basic stuff not scientific bullshit stay with me here. ok now humans have not been burning coal on a large scale for thousands of years we began using it on a large scale for fuel when timber sources had been all but depleted in Europe around the beginning of the industrial age. now look at that graph notice around the same time it started to rise. this was just the beginning since then we have burnt more coal, discovered oil as a fuel and the human population has exploded resulting in a higher consumption of both coal and oil. I drive a car I use electricity everyday it is what we all do but you have to be very fucking stupid to think all the people around the wold doing the very same thing has no effect on our environment and planet but ignorance is bliiss

mr 3 how can you push this crap? i have the monopoly on talking shit on this site not you! you are not bigwayne so how can you have all this so called information? i hold all the information that there is on all subjects and you my little man run the risk of making a fool of yourself! i have the monopoly on this also and take umbrage that you think that you can do a better job at it than me. so get back in your little cave little man and do some research into what your actually talking about. in the words of a near imortal wake up to yourself. and who said something about a bottle of jacks? ill call lynchburg in the us and call in a favour! this was a rant

Craig , be very careful on ice core samples as it is proven that many years can and have been lost through melts.

From Climate Progress web site,for us mindless zombie's to peruse.

You can’t read everything or listen to everybody. Life is just too short. I debated Christy years ago so I know he tries to peddle unscientific nonsense when he thinks he can get away with it.

But some of the more than 360 (!) comments in my recent post “The deniers are winning, especially with the GOP” can’t seem to get enough of the analyses by these two scientists University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) who famously screwed up the satellite temperature measurements of the troposphere.

In the interest of saving you some time, which is a major goal of this blog, let’s see why these are two people you can program your mental DVR to fast forward through. First off, they were wrong — dead wrong — for a very long time, which created one of the most enduring denier myths, that the satellite data didn’t show the global warming that the surface temperature data did. As RealClimate wrote yesterday:

We now know, of course, that the satellite data set confirms that the climate is warming , and indeed at very nearly the same rate as indicated by the surface temperature records. Now, there’s nothing wrong with making mistakes when pursuing an innovative observational method, but Spencer and Christy sat by for most of a decade allowing — indeed encouraging — the use of their data set as an icon for global warming skeptics. They committed serial errors in the data analysis, but insisted they were right and models and thermometers were wrong. They did little or nothing to root out possible sources of errors, and left it to others to clean up the mess, as has now been done.

Amazingly (or not), the “serial errors in the data analysis” all pushed the (mis)analysis in the same, wrong direction. Coincidence? You decide. But I find it hilarious that the deniers and delayers still quote Christy/Spencer/UAH analysis lovingly, but to this day dismiss the “hockey stick” and anything Michael Mann writes, when his analysis was in fact vindicated by the august National Academy of Sciences in 2006 (see New Scientist’s “Climate myths: The ‘hockey stick’ graph has been proven wrong“).

In their solo careers, Spencer and Christy are still pros at bad analysis.

RealClimate utterly skewers Spencer’s recent dis-analysis — misanalysis doesn’t seem a strong enough word for what he has done (see RC’s “How to cook a graph in three easy lessons“). RC calls it “shameless cookery.” If you like semi-technical discussions, then I strongly recommend the post. I would add in passing with no editorial comment that the Spencer disanalysis was posted on the website of one Roger Pielke, Sr. [Insert your editorial comment here, or here.]

As for Christy, what can you say about somebody who contributed the chapter “The Global Warming Fiasco” to a 2002 book called Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths, published by Competitive Enterprise Institute, a leading provider of disinformation on global warming that is/was funded by ExxonMobil?

In the Vermont case on the state’s effort to embrace California’s tailpipe GHG emissions standards, the car companies brought in Christy as an expert witness to rebut Hansen (see here). In one footnote on the sea level rise issue, the judge noted, “it appears that the bulk of scientific opinion opposes Christy’s position.” By the way, for all you deniers/delayers/doubters, let me quote further from the judge:

There is widespread acceptance of the basic premises that underlie Hansen’s testimony. Plaintiffs’ own expert, Dr. Christy, agrees with the IPCC’s assessment that in the light of new evidence and taking into account remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last fifty years is likely to have been due to the increase in GHG concentrations. Tr. vol. 14-A, 145:18-148:7 (Christy, May 4, 2007). Christy agrees that the increase in carbon dioxide is real and primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels, which changes the radiated balance of the atmosphere and has an impact on the planet’s surface temperature toward a warming rate. Id. at 168:11-169:10.

Christy also agreed that climate is a nonlinear system, that is, that its responses to forcings may be disproportionate, and rapid changes would be more difficult for human beings and other species to adapt to than more gradual changes. Id. at 175:2-174:11. He further agreed with Hansen that the regulation’s effect on radiative forcing will be proportional to the amount of emissions reductions, and that any level of emissions reductions will have at least some effect on the radiative forcing of the climate.

Christy is (mostly) a delayer these days, now that his denier disanalysis has been dissed and the real science is well verified by real observation.

Christy criticized the Hadley and Canadian models, suggesting that they were extreme and were downscaled unreliably. Tr. vol. 14-A, 121:13-122:4 (Christy, May 4, 2007). Although Christy testified that he had used climate models, however, he did not claim to be an expert on climate modeling. Id. at 78:20-79:3. In fact, his view of the reliability of climate models does not fall within the mainstream of climate scientists; his view is that models are, in general, “scientifically crude at best,” although they are used regularly by most climate scientists and he himself used the compiled results of a variety of climate models in preparing his report and testimony in this case.

You go, judge!

In December 2003, Christy said in a debate:

I don’t see danger. I see, in some cases, adaptation, and in others something like restrained glee, at the thought of longer growing seasons, warmer winters, and a more fertile atmosphere.

Restained glee. Yes, that’s going to be the reaction to widespread desertification, loss of the inland glaciers, sea level rise for century after century, mass extinction….

So, if you have time to burn, and a planet to burn, these are the guys to listen to. Otherwise I’d look elsewhere.

http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/22/should-you-believe-anything-john-c...

This (below) is another well written article on the ABC today that makes the point that stu (and others) made earlier on in this thread, that the carbon tax is not about changing the climate and nick3 despite what Andrew Bolt will tell you, this is not big news. It's about facilitating a transition to a different set of energy sources and positioning Australia to take advantage of this over the next few decades. It's an economic argument not an environmental one. It always has been.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/45810.html

Anyway, it's worth a read.

RALLY FOR ACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE (SYDNEY) TOMORROW

See you this Saturday

Are millionaire radio shock jocks and ultra-right politicians the voice of the people on climate change? Of course not. But they’re desperately trying to organise the appearance of a ‘people’s revolt’ against climate action, and we have to make sure they don’t get to speak for us.

Come along to Belmore Park in Sydney on Saturday the 2nd of April to show our leaders what a real community rally looks like.

Please don't forget to tell your friends!

When:Saturday April 2nd

Where: Belmore Park Sydney

Time: 11am.

Thanks Nick3.

Its total dickheads like you that have re- woken the political animal in me.

I guess I will just get involved in some grass roots people's revolt. Call it a green tea party.

The Goverment needs to take some responsibility and instead of spending 74 FUCKING Billion dollars on high speed broadband that i already have !!!, they should speng this money helping our enviroment.

Bob Brown should be ashamed of himself leting Julia do this........

@spongebob 01 April 2011 04:33 PM

Thanks for that link, very interesting. I particularly like the comparison between the way deniers/delayers etc treat Christy's errors to their treatment of the hockey stick graph.

Thanks Benski,I liked the lifes to sort,so here's the info flavor of the site.
Anyway my on the fly theory of the fall in Co2 in the ice core graph & Great Plagues was wrong ,out by a century.
Looks like it was caused by "The Little Ice Age" & Co2 mixing ratio in ice cores.

See Nik it's ok to get it wrong & it wont kill you to admit it,come comrade join us.
Why fight for these generals who send you into battle with a bent rifle & a hand full of dud bullets?

Now for my transgression I must don my dunce hat & go join Christy & Spencer in the corner.

onya mr.spongebob (for admitting you were wrong)

spongebob's litle admission reminded me of one my uni lecturers criticising our political and media systems which basically condemn any politician for changing their minds. if they do change their stance on something the media comes out with negative terms like "Beazlely backflips on ......", when actually someone changing their mind or acknowledging they were wrong shows character, and more importantly a rational thought process.

But i think it is against human nature to admit you were wrong, or change your stance on something you believe in. I also remember an academic on ABC radio (yes i watch/listen to ABC too much)talking about research which found that most people will not change their opinion on issues even if they are presented with proof to the contrary. he used the example of Obama, and people thinking he was a muslim, even when they were told otherwise, when questioned again, these people would not accept that he was actually christian. Now these were probably those tea party types, so expecting Nik to change his mind is not likely no matter what infomation you throw at him.especially if he is one of those righteous christian types.

mr 3, its funny how EVERY one else has got the wrong end of the stick and only yours is the right end? let me fill you in on being right all the time its not easy but someone has to do it and that job is already taken by yours truly! so i have gotten my self up and got a job! under what authority do you make these claims? and most of all why, if this is the way you operate, do you resort to name calling? and trying to belittle people that dont subscribe to your mantra? do tell! intelligent men like the ones on this thread can see through the bullshit that i sprout and see it for what it is. but you seem to take it too far old mate go over on the shoulder with the grommets and dont surf above your ability! or punch above your weight ! i am bigwayne you are not mr 3 so i say again dont surf above you ability.

Stunet, don't get made in China knickers in a knot! On the 26/3, you responded to me; "I used China as a leading example? Really?."

Yes, Stunet, really. -
On the 25/3 you wrote "I'm of the belief THAT CHINA with it's one state system, is much better prepared to tackle them", AND "We are not prepared, socially or politically, to keep up with the GREAT LEAPS FORWARD that CHINA is about to take".

Honestly, Stunet. If it quacks like a duck, it more than likely a duck.

Then to top it off, you call me "closed minded",even though I have suggested making green energy tax free???? Even though I have pointed out that the deforestation of the world is the major concern? Even though I have pointed ou that both sides of politics are to blame? Even though I pointed out that the pro nuclear lobby has its poisonous claws in the debate.
You ridicule me for using a link to Andrew Bolt, yet feel free to throw links to Getup? GETUP? You're kidding me. What's good for the goose isn't good for the gander. Do as I say, not as I do.
No sir. I'm not the one who is close minded. I wrote back to you in a very polite manner. The only thing that even came close to an insult was pointing out that you were on shaky ground re' China. That's not an insult, but if you took it that way, so be it.

Anyway, congrats to one and all. Instead of a honest and transparent debate, we now have an "us v them" mentality, with one eyed "denier" Australians v one eyed "sucker" Australians, and those in the middle wanting clarity being pidgeonholed by both sides whenever they open their mouth.
Well fuckn done.

Please don't give up on this debate, mel-anaoma et al. I really believe this whole Carbon Tax vs Global Warming thing WILL be solved here on the Swellnet Forum. Honestly! Truely! Have another go at the "rightous Christian types" please. It's the only way to have this all fixed.
"If it quacks like a duck...." No, you don't need a long neck to be a goose.
At any rate, this does make for interesting reading.

Uggly Nik real uggly.

"Instead of a honest and transparent debate, "

Yeah, right mel_anoma. Those who are against doing anything about climate change are really here for an honest and transparent debate.

Just thought I would pop in to point out to the knuckleheads on here that the downside of the carbon tax is that we will be paying about $11 a week, which will be recouped and more by the vast majority of climate deniers, as hardly any of them would be earning the basic wage let alone the average wage.

The upside is that it will probably lead us to developing unlimited sources of power that have no pollutants and require only modicums of maintenance to run for unforeseeable years into the future.

It reminds me of the mining tax debate. The govt proposed that everyone should get a few more dollars in their pocket paid for largely by multi-national, predominantly foreign owned companies, and the knuckleheads bought the line that this would be bad.

Not capable of thinking for themselves, not capable of seeing reality from fantasy.

BTW Nick3, I agree with your comments about an emissions market. The big investment bankers will rip all of that from the poor and unsuspecting. Carbon tax is the way to go.

Mel-anoma,

I didn't use China as a leading example, I used them to highlight the shortcomings of our own political system when dealing with long-term issues. I even qualified it with this statement, "Not saying we should swap our system for theirs".

I also didn't 'call anyone names' as you say I did. I challenged you to go back and find that and you're yet to present any evidence.

And finally, I stated my position vis-a-vis the science on this issue and you retorted with, "Umm, no."

I try to make myself as clear as possible in these debates so as not to be misunderstood, but it seems people will read whatever they want to read.

Please if you really believe you are such a hard prick I will be more than happy to meet you. I am old school,so it would be just you and me.

By: "nick3"

Nick,

Drop the physical threats.

Darn, Nick3 the good ole boy is wantin to get physical. Now that's funny.

Hey big boy did I dream it or did this really happen at your rally opposing action on climate change? Sure hope it did .....

And was this a scene from the post rally entertainment .....

mr 3 thats what i do, i like eveyone else here, is in bigwaynes wonderful world, and you my son chose to let me get under your skin, where is my apology? im offended and will go and sit in the corner and sulk. back now , and over such a big threat from a little man. i have just had a board meeting with the 22 voices and they all concur that you mr 3 are in need of some t.l.c and not a right royal bigwayneing so count yourself lucky oldmate.

we as your betters see its beneath us to squabble about trivial matters such as global refrigeration of the consuming of crackers so i leave it to the great unwashed to sort that out. and scince when did the surfing fraternity care what the governments say or dont say , do or dont do? isnt the point of this wonderful thing we call surfing to "drop out" in our own way? but the one thing mr 3 that troubles me is that not once have you,considering that this is a site dedicated to surfing, that on this thread you have contributed nothing to say how this will affect our surfing? i suspect it wont so ease up "mate" and stay on the shoulder with the groms untill your "surfing" improves exponentially. this was bought to you by a heavily medicated bigwayne

I thought I could hear a Banjo.

Darn spongebob, Mighty fine clip but I swear I could hear some country hip hop music.

Are ya shore it wer'nt this ya were heardin?

http://www.evtv1.com/player.aspx?itemnum=7387

I was travelling by Club Terrace in the hills back of Gippsland and I found this ole clip on that darn fangled TV ......

mr 3 , sticks and stone will never break ones bones but whips and chains exite me! are you tring to whip one? anyhoo stay on the shoulder its not your wave yet littleman