A couple of days ago, Family First Senator Steve Fielding published an op-ed in The Australian. After a visit to a climate change conference in Washington, Fielding has returned with concerns about the scientific evidence for global warming. As noted in today’s open thread, he is continuing to call on Kevin Rudd and Penny Wong to convince him that the evidence supports AGW before he will support the emissions trading scheme.
Rather than offer a detailed commentary myself, in this post I will provide links to a few sources of coverage and discussion, then throw it open to comment and debate.
For starters, Barry Brook offers a rebuttal of the notion that solar activity is driving global warming:
So, let’s look at the problem in the simplest possible terms:
1. The Earth’s temperature is rising.
2. Solar activity and GHG both force the climate system.
3. There is no trend in solar activity.
4. There is an upwards trend in greenhouse gas concentration.
Simple reasoning will point to the trending driver (GHG) over the non-trending driver (solar) being the culprit. For a solar explanation to work, you not only have to explain why a climate forcing agent would be exerting a directional effect of the climate system when it itself is NOT changing — you also have to explain how that stationary agent is also able to negate another climate forcing agent that IS changing.
Graham Readfearn discusses Fielding’s reliance on information from the Heartland Institute, the think-tank that organised the conference Fielding attended.
On the other hand, Andrew Bolt sees ABC bias in their coverage of Fielding, and sees Fielding as being the catalyst to achieve something others (including Bolt himself) can’t – to force the Government to answer the questions of those who dispute global warming.
More discussion of Fielding’s op-ed and his questions at Jennifer Marohasy’s blog and Larvatus Prodeo.
UPDATE: Andrew Glikson has a guest post at GreenBlog.
UPDATE #2: Andrew Bolt says the SMH is smearing Fielding with its coverage. And he has that Roy Spencer graph to prove it, apparently.
UPDATE #3: Confessions points out that there’s another related post at Larvatus Prodeo.
43 Comments
I posted this in the open tread but I think it should be here
Some questions raised by Senator Fielding’s visit:
Does he not think Ian Plimer has done enough to debunk GW?
Does he think Ian Plimer’s book is wrong?
Was he not going to meet the White House Scientific team?
Why didn’t he seek opinions here in Australia before heading to the US?
Has he spoken to Sir Nicholas Stern?
So what is he saying, that GW is happening but it’s the Sun’s fault?
Anything I have missed?
Steve Fielding’s “trip to a climate change conference in Washington” had nothing to do with examining the evidence dispassionately (because clearly his mind was made up) and everything to do with appearing on television via a satellite link and saying, “I’m going to the White House tomorrow!”
the other issue with the Heartland institute is its connections with the tobacco industry and it actively working to limit public perception of the dangers of tobacco smoke exposure.
this fact alone should send sufficient warning bells to even the dimmest of AGW deniers that the organisation is not about representing facts.
Fielding PWNED!
From the open thread:
He was telling Fran Kelly this morning that because he’s an engineer he’s been trained to analyse stuff. Great, it’s the conclusion that counts! Isn’t Fielding a creationist? Did his engineering training help him reach the conclusion that creationism is right (therefore evolution is wrong)??
Fielding is like Joyce, a big mouth who’s out to make a name for himself, there’s no substance though, he said bugger all on Fran Kelly’s show this morning, just went on and on that the Govt’s stance (that AGW is real) has never been questioned and he’s the man to do it. He kept on telling us that his trip to the US was self-funded. Here’s a tip Fielding, you could have saved yourself some dosh by asking questions in Australia.
Bring on a double dissolution, let’s dump this fool, after all hardly anyone voted for him, he got in on Labor preferences (stupid Labor) .
Further to what I wrote in the open thread, why is it up to Rudd and Wong to convince him? They have about as much expertise and training in the area as Fielding, and are effectively only mouth-pieces for the information. If Fielding is fair dinkum he will organise meetings with scientists that are experts and publishing in the field (Plimer doesn’t count) and have them explain it to him. This may be too hard basket for Fielding and I doubt he is fair dinkum. If he was he could have done his research before going to the U.S and set up numerous meetings there, as well as here before he went. This looks to be yet another of his 15mins of political wanking.
The childish casuistry of Bolt’s demand that the Government answer Fielding’s questions is jaw-droppingly stupid. Fielding is obviously ignoring the mass of science out there, including that of our own CSIRO. If Fielding was actually leading the government, does this mean that he would ignore, or even stifle the CSIRO ( as Bush tried to do with the US science agencies) if the evidence is politically unpalatable to him?
The effort here is for Fielding to avoid being lectured by scientists at all costs, because everyone will see him being humiliated.
Actually Jay and Monkeywrench, Fielding is asking to meet with the scientists — it may well still be too hard for him to understand what they tell him though.
What is happening here is that Fielding is disguising his true agenda, just as Bolt does. Fielding, Pell and the other religious types who dispute the idea that global warming could be potentially disastrous do so because they can’t believe God would permit such a thing to happen, or if he did it would be because the human race deserved it for being sinful, and that wouldn’t matter because they would be saved. They believe this primitive garbage, but they’re embarrassed to give public expression to it. So they wrap it up in a cloak of science which falls apart with the slightest scrutiny.
UPDATE: Andrew Glikson has a guest post at GreenBlog.
From fieldings op-ed piece:
Proof that his ‘open mind’ is just a recent penchant.
I apologise if I’m reading you wrong here Confessions and as much as I’m no fan of his, but it sounds to me that the main reason you aren’t happy with Fielding is that he is now questioning the fact of AGW and wants to be provided with some evidence that human activity is the major factor responsible for warming.
He says in the same piece that he doesn’t deny global warming is occurring, only the extent of human culpability.
Frankly I think he’s doing the right thing — before committing to voting for or against an ETS, he’s wanting to scrutinise as much information as possible, I wish more politicians would do the same on all manner of issues they vote on.
And Penny Wong using threats and blackmail against those who are to vote doesn’t do a lot for her credibility nor for that of her cause either. If the case for an ETS is strong, why does she feel the need to resort to this tactic ?
Fielding and Bolt as one, God help us!!!!!!
And old SMH article, penned after Fielding’s election in 2004, but good coverage of background: “Politics is next to godliness” http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/10/14/1097607367891.html
To keep my mind off the cold snap, I did some searching & reading, and discovered that it’s easy to appreciate that the Senator (given his religious background) might be sincerely confused – and just possibly open to some more tempered lobbying. (hope the links work)
There’s an interesting page “Global Warming, Creation Care, and the Environment” (inc “Second Coming Ecology”) that might help explain Fielding’s less than clear position: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/special/globalwarming.html?gclid=CNLN7YqH_5oCFcIvpAodeHZsdw On it, there’s also a link to Cizik’s resignation, over his support for gay marriages, from (USA) National Association of Evangelicals (of which AOG is part). Amazingly liberal for such an association, and a strong environmentalist, he had been responsible for NAE’s “we don’t [have a specific position] on global warming or emissions. [Cizik] has spoken as an individual on that.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_of_Evangelicals#Global_warming There may soon be updates on NAE stances, & the conf Fielding just attended may be a step to a different position.
Probably more representative of AOG’s position is a “Global Warming” message board on http://messages.yahoo.com/Religion_%26_Beliefs/Christianity/Denominations_and_Sects/Assemblies_of_God/threadview?m=tm&bn=17926050&tid=4476&mid=4476&tof=1&frt=2 Sarah Palin is AOG, and many search engine references are to her & Alaska.
On Fielding’s other stances: AOG’s “position papers” on a number of topics raised in the Oz Senate are listed on the General Council of AOG’s site: http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/Position_Papers/index.cfm
GavinM: you are reading me wrong. The main reasons Fielding pisses me off is that:
1. he now claims to have an open mind which goes against his earlier stand on AGW. he’s known since 2007 like the rest of us that Labor intended to introduce an ETS scheme, yet it’s only now that suddenly he has this revelation to ask questions and become informed.
2. he is taking at face value the ’science’ from an institution that has taken funding from tobacco companies and tried to attack the well-proven fact that smoking and exposure to tobacco smoke is harmful to health. This same institution that Fielding places so much stock in accepts funding from the lobby group with the most to lose from laws that limit greenhouse emissions and which is now trying to muddy the scientific consensus of AGW with disproven and debunked theories (sun flares eg).
3. he claims that he is acting in the interests of families, forgetting a) that future generations stand to lose the most from human-induced warming that is not abated now, and b) Labor has a clear mandate presumably from the same families Fielding is claiming to represent.
4. the information he claims to want from government is readily available on government websites such as CSIRO (even written in Fielding-friendly lay terms). Has he read this? if so, what is not clear to him, and if not, why not?
5. he claims these issues have not been debated in the media. Quite possibly if he only reads the Australian, his impression would be correct. The Australian runs one line on AGW and one line only: that it’s a crock. but that doesn’t mean that the media as a whole has been silent in presenting both sides of the AGW debate. Again, i find it strange that with all the climate related blogs around that he is only cottoning onto accessing this information.
6. his claim to an open mind is distinctly at odds with his closed mind on evolution, sex education in schools, and women’s rights to self-determination when it comes to their own bodies (abortion).
I’m glad it’s the wingnut denialists who have embraced him: their idols are becoming more lunatic with each passing day.
Only two sentences in that Gliksons article could remotely be described as a scientific rebuttal. The rest is just a series of ad hominem attacks.
“Compare with temperature rise by more than +0.6 degrees Celsius due to greenhouse warming…” His links are to the IPCC report and GIS data. That’s all you need to know!
To paraphrase Dawkins, an open mind is a good thing, but not so open that your brain falls out. In Fielding’s case he’s not starting with a particularly large brain, so the danger is twice as great.
Is there anyone the Heartland foundation can’t buy?
PS. Dr Glikson’s article is a panacea to the stupidity I have read over the past few days. Thanks for the link, Toby.
Where Rod does it say that Andrew Glikson’s piece is a scientific rebuttal, and a rebuttal to what science, Fielding hasn’t offered any?
It is a rebuttal of Fielding and the tobacco/company financed institute organised climate change conference sponsored by the ALS.
“Compare with temperature rise by more than +0.6 degrees Celsius due to greenhouse warming…”
So you’re saying that warming hasn’t occured, that the data we all rely on (including the sceptics) is false, and that the IPCC are running a scam to fool everyone for various unnamed reasons?
Yep, airtight argument you have there.
Only two sentences in that Gliksons article could remotely be described as a scientific rebuttal. The rest is just a series of ad hominem attacks.
this is the difference with denialists and those who accept the AGW evidence: rusted on faith that results in the same old tired arguments being produced again and again. Most of us who accept the science desperately hope that it’s wrong, that this really is some kind of temporary cycle in global climate. if the majority of climate scientists are wrong about the climate predictions i’ll be the first to get drunk on vieve clicoux and run naked through the streets!
But denialists can’t fathom being wrong, they are so convinced that they and they alone are right and that people infinately and more emininately qualified than them are the ones who are wrong/lying/colluding for grants/whatever. Why else do we so often see these people slag off at the majority who accept the AGW science for closing our minds to alternative ‘evidence’, when it is in fact these lunatic denialists who are the ones who steadfastly close their own minds to the majority of scientic evidence that supports the theory of AGW? And doing so with such lame arsed replies like “ad hominem attacks” when the Glikson post is nothing of the sort?
A lot of the above is simply “ad hominem”. NAE religions are not famous for attracting those likely to read all the (or any) evidence, argue about it with all sides and reach their own conclusions, and Fielding had never struck me as being as the brightest spark in the fire & he usually toes the AOG line. His church doesn’t have an official stance on Global Warming; nor, he says, does he. So, on this one, he may, indeed, “have an open mind” – or, more probably, a confused one (he’s admitted that too).
Given the importance of his vote, wouldn’t a smart Greenie find someone – a good, pleasant and rational communicator – to sit down with him and talk him through it? Once the AOG develops a position, that will be his; get to him before it does, and you might influence more than his vote.
Engaging in ad hominem abuse is just as irrational as the abusers are accusing Fielding (or Bolt) of being, and more characteristic of RWDB/ Rove-style Religious Republicanism than rational members of a political party trying to “save the planet”. No wonder it’s stuck c8% in Opinion polls.
BTW, if I had to indicate a voting preference for Fielding, I’d have a hard time trying to decide where at the bottom of my list I’d put him – probably just ahead of Pauline H and any candidate supported by LoR, La Rouche, DLP, Fred Nile etc
I hope Fielding finds evidence that God exists while he’s at it.
What a champion!
I note that the Greenblog has a reply from the terminally-unreadable Peter K Anderson aka Hartlod. Have a go at it, if you have a few spare minutes. It’s more perplexing than Sudoku, less immediately translateable as the Rosetta Stone, and less rewarding. And it’s also what one can expect as regards logical extrapolation from the denialist set.
Confessions,
Fielding said up until his meetings in the USA he accepted AGW unquestioningly as fact but after those meetings he came away with some questions that he wanted cleared up and that he is going to put to Penny Wong and her advisors — Frankly I see no issue with this, its a pity not all politicians question issues before they vote on them, instead of just following party lines.
Once again you fall for the trap of attacking an institution instead of questioning the issues they have raised, so what if it’s the Heartland institute or the tobacco industry ? (although I’m yet to see any AGW’er explain just what it is the tobacco industry has to gain by denying global warming) — the science being presented at the conferences is either right or wrong, if its wrong then so be it, there shouldn’t be any need to attack the messenger, just continue to debunk the message.
There’s people on both sides with vested interests, the problem is to sort out who are telling the truth and who are trying to further their own interests.
While on the subject of attacking the messenger, as much as I disagree with Fielding’s religious beliefs and think that his Church is a bunch of nutjobs — I fail to see their relevance to him wanting to get more information before he casts his vote.
UPDATE #2: Andrew Bolt says the SMH is smearing Fielding with its coverage. And he has that Roy Spencer graph to prove it, apparently.
gavin: “attacking the institution” as you put it is entirely legitimate in this instance. Firstly, why should an organisation that accepts funding from the tobacco lobby to discredit the science of second hand smoke exposure be accepted as credible? Secondly why should an organisation that accepts funding from the oil and gas lobby to discredit the science of AGW be equally as credible? And that isn’t including the fact that the science presented at the conference, that Fielding has placed so much stock in, has already been discredited by mainstream science – did you not utilise any of the links TZ provided?
He is right to ask questions, but my point stands: why now, when he has known since 2007 that if elected labor would introduce an ETS? Fielding is engaging in cheap tactics to increase his chances of re-election, ie keeping himself at the forefront of the media cycle. in this regard he’s no different to any other politician, yet the AGW denialist crowd are jumping for joy for some reason, probably because they don’t understand what’s actually happening here.
TZ: another update post from LP
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2009/06/11/noah-theophilosophy-and-climate-change/
Thanks; post updated.
“why now, when he has known since 2007 that if elected labor would introduce an ETS? ”
Have you never had a second thought or change of mind on any issue, confessions ?
I’m not saying the Heartland Institute is credible, nor is Fielding, what he’s saying is that as a result of his meetings he has some questions he wishes to put to Wong and her advisors before casting his vote.
I don’t have a problem with this at all, hopefully he’ll get his answers and if he is satisfied with them, will vote accordingly.
So, let’s look at the problem in the simplest possible termsAGAIN AND CORRECT THEM:
1. The Earth’s temperature is rising.
NOPE IT’S NOT!
The Space and Science Research Center Issues A Formal Declaration:
Global Warming Has Ended – The Next Climate Change to A Pronounced Cold Era Has Begun.
http://www.spaceandscience.net/id16.html
————-
Global Cooling is Here! “63 new snowfall records”
“Evidence for Predicting Global Cooling for the Next Three Decades”
By Professor Don Easterbrook, Western Washington University.
2. Solar activity and GHG both force the climate system.
SOLAR ACTIVITY,A BIG Y-E-S.AS FOR GHG(CO2 = 0.035)MINISCULE
3. There is no trend in solar activity.
NO,NOT ANY MORE BUT THERE WAS, THERE’S A LAG AND OCEANS HOLD HEAT FOR YEARS AFTER.
———
http://www.john-daly.com/solar/solar.htm
A DOMINANT FACTOR IN CLIMATE DYNAMIC
by Dr Theodor Landscheidt
Schroeter Institute for Research in Cycles of Solar Activity
———
What about the Sun’s coronal magnetic field has doubled in the last 100 years, see e.g. Lockwood et al.
4. There is an upwards trend in greenhouse gas concentration
YEP,97 PERCENT FROM THE OCEAN 3 PERCENT INDUSTRIAL,OH!AND WE WERE LIED TO ON PRE-INDUSTRIAL LEVELS.
GOOGLE,CO2 measured by scientists from 1855 to 1957-Ernst-Georg Beck
———
Clouds have a hundred times stronger effect on weather and climate than carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Even if the atmosphere’s CO2 content doubled, its effect would be cancelled out if the cloud cover expanded by 1%, as shown by H. E. Landsberg [53]. Svensmark’s and Friis-Christensen’s result is therefore of great importance.
“what he’s saying is that as a result of his meetings he has some questions he wishes to put to Wong and her advisors before casting his vote.”
I don’t buy it for one minute, he holds the balance of power and is milking it for everything he can. Bring on the double dissolution, I don’t care if it weakens Labor, I have no love for them but I’m spewing that this creationist (being a creationist totally contradicts his claim that as a trained engineer he analyses the evidence) who got 2% of the popular vote wields so much power. This isn’t democracy, this is major political parties playing silly buggers with preferences.
I predict that a DD election will work wonders for the Greens and ultimately Australia. I believe that many people in this particular instance think like me, regardless of AGW less pollution is a good thing, less pollution leads to less waste which is also a good thing. Sustainability is where it’s at, not free market craziness and it’s resultant waste!
Can’t argue with you about less pollution being a good thing Rob, I’m not sure how the ETS will actually work in practice but I don’t have any real issues with implementing it, and I’ve no objection to reducing our emissions as long as — as I’ve said before — we don’t bankrupt ourselves to achieve it and as long as Mr. and Mrs. Average Citizen can still afford to put food on the table.
As to Fielding milking the balance of power, I’ve no doubt there is an element of that in this as well — there’s nothing new there, I guess that’s just a weakness of our system which at times allows individuals the power to hold the country to ransom, it will be interesting to see if he makes any specific demands in return for his vote. I remember Brian Harradine all too well.
#18
>So you’re saying that warming hasn’t occured,
Where do you think I said that? But since you asked, the jury is still out as to what extent man has changed the climate and it is even less certain we can change it back. We haven’t learnt all there is to know, you know?
> that the data we all rely on (including the sceptics) is false,
It is being scrutised and valid concerns are being raised. Eg http://www.surfacestations.org/
Plus, I’m sure you already know the dissenting views on the quality of climate modeling to predict the climate 50-100 years into the future.
> that the IPCC are running a scam to fool everyone for various unnamed reasons?
There does not need to be some grand planned conspiracy, but when you have a well established narrative accepted by world politics, new and contrary information isn’t going to derail that train. You then need to consider other sources.
what RobJ said. bring on the DD and let’s turf this nusiance out. his recalcitrance over the alcopops, naysaying on the stimulus bills (although at least supported it), foreign aid for terminations and now climate chnage where the government has a clear mandate is not someone who is concerned for the future or asking genuine questions about the science. it’s just political posturing.
“as I’ve said before — we don’t bankrupt ourselves to achieve it and as long as Mr. and Mrs. Average Citizen can still afford to put food on the table.”
I don’t think we will, however heavy polluters have to start paying, we all do, we have to lead by example, the argument that others are bigger net polluters pisses me off, that rationale means I can go home, hose down my drive and claim that CUB waste more water, and that I’m only using a few hundred litres from the pool of gigalitres..
I think we’re a long way from Mr and Mrs Average feeding the family, we are amongst the richest people on the planet, we got rich by wasting resources and polluting big time, and some of us have the gall to think that we shouldn’t move until developing nations move.
Jobs will be lost, that’s for sure, basically I say tough shit, jobs shouldn’t be preserved at any cost, I used to work for Telstra, when I started they employed over 100 000 people, they now employ 30 000 no fucking politician ever shed a tear for those jobs, car industry and farmers are a different kettle of fish though aren’t they. Well i say plumbers, sparkies and Telstar workers are human beings too!
“it will be interesting to see if he makes any specific demands in return for his vote. I remember Brian Harradine all too well.”
I got a (not-so) sneaky feeling that the Govt wants an early election, all they have to do to achieve this is tell fielding to get lost, tell him he’s not credible (nor are they though but at least they want to implement an ETS).
/Rant off!
Anyway, necessity being the mother of invention, let’s lead from the front and then reap the rewards when the rest of the world comes to the realisation that burning fossil fuels is unsustainable, they’ll be falling over themselves to get our expertise. As it stands Germany and California will be the big winners.
#26 Geesh, there seems to be a lot of projecting to come up with that baloney.
The answer is far simpler. Normally it is okay for scientific debate to occur and for people to side in the camp that makes the most sense to them, but also to freely move to the other camp as new facts and logic dictate. But climate change and politics are now so deeply entrenched from government right down to the individual. So much so that if you know someone’s position on climate change, you can almost certainly pick their political bent. So now when you argue climate change, you are really arguing politics, which means new and valid issues are not discussed with your opposites in a rational and courteous way, but with hand grenades and trench warfare.
@ Chugg.
*sigh*
1. Yes, a reliable scientific source.
It looks like the “Space and Science Research Center” consists entirely of John L. Casey.
2. First, WTF is GHG?
Second, generally: what?
Third: The influence of changes in solar output do not affect us nearly as much as the influence of changes in CO2 levels. Besides, there are dead giveaway fingerprints when the heating is caused by solar forcing: the whole atmosphere heats up from the outside in, so you expect a warm upper stratosphere. If Greenhouse effect were doing it, then you expect a cool upper stratosphere, because the heat is being trapped in lower layers. We observe a cool upper stratosphere. QED.
3. “… by Dr Theodor Landscheidt”. Ahuh. You mean Theodor Landscheidt the “author, astrologer and amateur climatologist”? (my emphasis). Definitive.
4. The Beck paper looks interesting, insofar as I’m a judge. (a summary can be found here (via), but it also has problems which even I can see. The graph where Beck claims to show that the historic CO2 levels were much higher than are claimed, also shows this magic jump between the end of chemically measured data and the beginning of Mauna Loa data. Either the Mauna Loa data is wrong, or else the people who measured CO2 levels before that point were measuring local conditions which may or may not have been reflected in wider conditions. (That’s what I get from it, anyway. A chemist/climatologist will know better than I.)
Oh, and as for the “97% is ocean wah!”, the ocean has been putting out what it has been taking in for a very long time, so even small increases over stasis add up, increasingly fast. And then even faster once various tipping points are reached (melting points, weather pattern changes, chemical saturations, &c).
So, all in all, thanks for playing. And I do mean ‘playing’.
(quote)*sigh*1. Yes, a reliable scientific source.(end quote)
That is only ONE instance and BTW !What matters is whether the science is true or not, an example is GALILEO AS A QUESTIONER OF ANCIENT AND MEDIEVAL AUTHORITIES,The only difference now, it’s those who are opposed to the Church of Global Warming that are being accused of being heratics.
Here’s 31,000 American scientists that have signed a peer reviewed paper that you must also discredit if you can,play away till your hearts content!
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
_______
(quote)
2. First, WTF is GHG?
Second, generally: what?
Third: The influence of changes in solar output do not affect us nearly as much as the influence of changes in CO2 levels. Besides, there are dead giveaway fingerprints…… (end quote)
WTF is GHG?>Sigh!Green House Gasses duh!
——–
Speaking of ‘fingerprint’ of greenhouse forcing. NOTE THE GRAPHICS!
http://science-sepp.blogspot.com/
“Climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia report that observed patterns of temperature changes
>>(‘fingerprints’)<>in conflict <INCREASINGLY< RELEASES MORE CO2 and certainly not “carring on as usual”
——-
STOP THIS CO2 MADNESS!
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=439&Itemid=1
CO2 represents just 0.038% of the Earth’s atmosphere,NOW ask your self what proportion of that miniscule amount is Anthropogenic?
I know who’s playing the games!
The Oregon Petition. You’re relying on the Oregon Petition? Oy.
“NOTE THE GRAPHICS!”
NEVER MIND THE WIDTH, FEEL THE QUALITY! WHY ARE WE SHOUTING? WOULD IT HELP TO KNOW THAT YOU ARE WRONG?
“NOW ask your self what proportion of that miniscule amount is Anthropogenic?”
Answer: too much.
Please stop. I would say that you are embarrassing yourself, but the evidence is that you don’t understand the concept of shame. Or else you’re a really dedicated troll.
(quote)WHY ARE WE SHOUTING?(end quote)
Because IT IS and has been AND LIKELY WILL BE NEEDLESLY COSTING ME AND OTHERS THROUGH THE STUPIDITY OFBRAINLESS PEOPLE WHO DON’T REALIZE WHEN THEY ARE BEING DUPED;
FACT: A new MIT study concludes that the Sanders-Boxer approach would impose a tax-equivalent of $366 billion annually, or more than>>> $4,500 per family of four<<<, by 2015. And the annual costs will grow after 2015.
The cost of mittigating global warming to every household.
The fact that world has spent and wasted $50 billion attempting and failing reducing harmless carbon dioxide doesn’t concern you?
In October 2006, media reports called for increased government spending to the tune of $180 billion per year, or $400 per man, woman and child in the U.S. Previously, the media also promoted joining the Kyoto Protocol, which could have costs U.S. taxpayers up to $440 billion per year.
On average every household in the UK paid £400 more in levies than it cost to cover their own footprint, the TPA claimed.
Are you ignorant of been overtaxed to support a problem that does not exist?
You are supporting corruption ,example the likes of All Gore and Morrice Strong ripping people off.
You are SUPPORTING A FRAUDULENT AND CORRUPT UNIPCC
People like you are responsible the fuel hike which is probably most of the cause of this recession?
The likes of people like you are responsible for diverting monney away from self help scheemes and aid and so costing lives in third world countries.
BUT WORST OF ALL BY ELECTING BAD GOV. THAT MAKE WRONG DECISIONS,YOU ARE FORCING THE COST ON TO OTHERS,THE BRAINWASHING OF CHILDREN AND CONDONING THE CORRUPTION OF SCIENCE.
Millions will have needlessly suffered, but the promoters of the scam will have to live with that on their conscience.
SO,JUST WHO IS IT by the evidence above that doesn’t understand the concept of shame?
——————-
The basic tenet of those who say that we are experiencing anthropogenic CO2 driven global warming is the frequent occurrence of new temperature extremes. This analysis is a high-level “test” of that hypothesis.
Anthropogenic CO2 driven global warming means more frequent occurrences of temperature extremes.
Increased Record High Temperatures
Is that a true or false
1994 – 9
1995 – 5
1996 – 4
1997 – 3
1998 – 19
1999 – 4
2000 – 17
2001 – 0
2002 – 1
2003 – 0
2004 – 0
2005 – 0
2006 – 1
Total for 13 years is 62.
Compare this to 1929 – 1941:
1929 – 7
1930 – 16
1931 – 8
1932 – 10
1933 – 6
1934 – 25
1935 – 1
1936 – 29
1937 – 2
1938 – 8
1939 – 12
1940 – 4
1941 – 8
The total for 13 years is 136.
WOULD IT HELP TO KNOW THAT YOU ALARMISTS ARE THE ONE’S W-R-O-N-G?
NO DOUBT ABOUT IT!!
There’s no point arguing statistics or empirical evidence with them Chugg. They are the brain dead green fried zombie monsters of the left. They will brook no alternative view. They are the Darleks of the modern world.
All that can be left to do is nothing. Absolutely nothing. We are going into a cooling period for the next few decades and the Alarmist’s view will cool as quickly as the weather.
The Alarmists are losing the debate Chugg. Reality is catching up with their bullshit. Its just a matter of sitting back and waiting for the entire edifice to collapse.
rpowell12, I hope you’re right about the cooling. But I’ll trust the word of people who actually know what they’re talking about over the semiliterate screaming of Chugg.
*sigh*
scratch a climate change denialist and find an hysterical fanatic.
(quote)I’ll trust the word of people who actually know what they’re talking about (end quote)
Actually there’s a bigger WORLD of eminent sceptical scientists,They out-number the A-C-T-U-A-L IPCC’S computer modeler AWG hypothesis scientists 12 to 1.
——
SO MUCH FOR YOUR WORLD OF AWG HYPOTHESIS SCIENTIST’S
The oft repeated notion of “hundreds” or even “thousands” of scientists affiliated with the UN agreeing to a single “consensus” does not hold up to scrutiny. Out of all the scientists affiliated with the UN, >>ONLY52 SCIENTISTS<< participated in UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers, which had to adhere to the wishes of the UN political leaders and delegates in a process described as more closely resembling a political party’s convention platform battle, not a scientific process
——-
Did you know there are no surveys of scientists supporting the IPCC’s conclusions. All we got are statements from “science academies”, i.e. politicial bodies pretending to represent their whole memberships. And the relevant word here is “pretending”.
——-
“Swedish Scientist Accuses UN’s IPCC of Falsifying Data and Destroying Evidence”
“UN Destroys Documents on Global Warming.”
NOW WHY DO THEY DO THAT?
http://www.theabsurdreport.com/2008/update-the-global-warming-file/
——-
New study finds IPCC “consensus” an “illusion”
An analysis released in September 2007 on the IPCC scientific review process by climate data analyst John McLean, revealed that the UN IPCC peer-review process is “an illusion.”
——–
UN scientist says IPCC has ‘flawed review process’
This analysis was echoed by UN scientist Dr. Madhav L. Khandekar, a retired Environment Canada scientist.
In an August 13, 2007 letter, Khandekar lashed out at those who “seem to naively believe that the climate change science espoused in the [UN's] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) documents represents ‘scientific consensus.’”
Khandekar continued: “Nothing could be further than the truth!
——–
We are down to the lunatic fringe
Only 34% Now Believe Global Warming Caused By Human Activity
http://www.examiner.com/x-2304-DC-Republican-Examiner~y2009m4d18-Only-34-Now-Believe-Global-Warming-Caused-By-Human-Activity
——–
Have I said yet “We are down to the lunatic fringe”?.
Most normal adults hold the shockingly controversial opinion that Global Warming is caused by normal planetary temperature cycles.
These numbers reflect a reversal from a year ago when 47% blamed human activity while 34% said long-term planetary trends.
That is a shift of a whopping 14% in one year.